Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

GM Crops

Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on the commercial planting of GM crops.

Margaret Beckett: No GM crop currently has all the regulatory approvals needed for commercial growing in the United Kingdom.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am looking to the future. May I refer her to the report recently published by the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which states that
	"allowing GM crop trials to continue does contravenes the precautionary principle"?
	In any future discussions that she has at a European level—of course, that is where decisions are now taken on commercial planting of GM crops—will she undertake to ensure that no planting of such crops will take place in Wales or Scotland without the express permission of the devolved Administrations in those countries?

Margaret Beckett: Obviously, what happens in Wales and Scotland is an issue for the devolved Administrations and not just the United Kingdom Government. I am not entirely sure whether I am familiar with the specific report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it has always seemed to me, just as it did to my predecessors, that the right way of proceeding is to examine the evidence and conduct proper trials. That is what the Government are endeavouring to do.

Joan Ruddock: Further to those points, is my right hon. Friend aware of the position of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly in saying that the field trial results should be available before the public consultation on which she is embarking is carried out? The steering group of the GM public debate board has said that it finds it extremely difficult to envisage effective consultation without common timing throughout the UK. Will she take those points into consideration and understand that we, the public, feel very strongly that the results of the trials should be available to inform that public debate?

Margaret Beckett: Of course, I always take seriously the views and concerns of the steering group, but it is not entirely clear to me that the public feel quite so passionately about the precise timing and conduct of the debate. As we are beginning to embark on the inquiry process, what I most want to know is what questions the public wish to have answered. I want to know what information the public want, as opposed—I say this with great respect to all those who are engaged in the dialogue—to what everybody is telling us that they want. I want to hear from the public themselves what they want to know, so that we can do as much as we can to give them the information that they seek in order to allow them to form their own views and judgments.
	I cannot remember my hon. Friend's precise words, but I am not sure whether she represents entirely accurately the views of the Scottish and Welsh Administrations, although they have certainly taken more of a view that the issue should be bound up with the crop trials. My worry has always been that, if we were to make the crop trials themselves the main feature of the dialogue and debate, we would be accused of not having a proper debate, but merely one about paving the way for decisions. That is not the case.

Robert Key: May I encourage the Secretary of State to be far more robust and proactive and to put far more time and resources into the public debate about GM crops and genetic modification in general? Will she ensure that the argument is not allowed to rest solely in the hands of the self-serving scaremongers who apparently represent a lot of views in this country? The vast majority of my constituents are hungry for knowledge, keen to make sensible judgments and, where progress can be made and benefits from GM shown to exist, they are ready to embrace them.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman clearly expresses one of the many strands of dialogue and debate on this matter. I note yet another plea for more expenditure from the Conservative Benches, but I fear that the £300,000 or thereabouts that we are prepared to put in seems a large sum. We are certainly very anxious to encourage informed dialogue on the issues.

Andrew George: If the Government really want to reconnect with farmers, as is stated in their farming strategy, which was published last month, why are some elements of the Government so keen to push GM technology on farmers when consumers are at best showing no interest and at worst advancing good arguments as to why farmers should remain GM-free? Whose interests would be served by pushing GM crops on farmers? The Prime Minister seems keen on the issue and Lord Haskins is also keen to lock farmers into contracts, but if the farmers want to reconnect with consumers, they would be best advised to leave well alone.

Margaret Beckett: I am not aware that anybody is trying to push GM crops on farmers. Certainly, no one in the Government is doing so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a perfectly proper legal process is under way whereby an application was made to conduct a process of assessing the possibility of commercially growing some of the crops in this country. It was decided by my predecessors that a proper trial should be conducted of the effects of growing such crops on the immediate environment. It is being conducted and that seems an entirely sensible way of behaving.

Laurence Robertson: In introducing crop trials into this country, has the Secretary of State taken note of the experience in America, where the Organic Soil Association reports that in one Canadian province the whole organic rape sector was lost owing to the carrying out of such trials? Will she carefully consider the experience in America before introducing trials of any great magnitude in this country?

Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the report that the hon. Gentleman cites. He will be aware that there are a plethora of such reports, which do not all say quite the same thing. The question focuses on crops that are being trialled in this country, which are not necessarily comparable. For example, one of the problems identified in the Canadian studies was that of gene stacking. That can occur only with crops that can cross-pollinate each other, which is not the case with those that are being trialled in this country.

Livestock Movements

Phil Sawford: If she will make a statement on the 20-day standstill rule for livestock.

Margaret Beckett: We announced in a written statement on 23 January that, subject to satisfactory further consultation with the livestock industry, we intend to reduce the standstill for cattle, sheep and goats to six days with effect from 4 March 2003.A supporting document explaining that decision has been placed in the Library and published on the Department's website.

Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that many in the agricultural industry will welcome those changes, because the previous arrangement was having a serious impact, especially on smaller farmers. As the restrictions are intended to combat the spread of serious contagious diseases, which could be catastrophic, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that she will take action against any farmers, landholders, dealers or others who seek to break or circumvent the rules?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know, and other hon. Members will recall, that the Government were strongly advised by the Royal Society inquiry and the Anderson inquiry to maintain restrictions until an assessment could be carried out. I assure my hon. Friend that one of my reasons for mentioning the consultation with the livestock industry is that the changes are subject to the industry's commitment to a package of measures to improve the level of biosecurity and disease surveillance. In everything we do, we must be sure that we do what we can to minimise the risk of disease entering the country, while, much more importantly, minimising the risk of the spread of disease. We shall certainly keep that well in mind.

Peter Atkinson: I, too, welcome the reduction of the standstill rule to six days, as will Northumbrian farmers. However, does the Secretary of State recognise that some of the other proposals that are out for consultation are causing real concern? I want to highlight in particular the movement restriction that limits the movement of sheep sold through livestock marts to 150 km, or 90 miles. That means that Northumbrian farmers will be unable to move sheep to the abattoirs that are used by all the major supermarket companies, and will be able to sell sheep into that market only by selling directly to the supermarkets, whose prices, as we know, will not be generous.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals. Of course I understand that there will be concern about some issues. The point of the consultation is to enable us to consider them all, and we shall certainly do so.

Lawrie Quinn: On the evening of 16 January, I spent an interesting three hours with 18 sheep farmers from the north York moors, who will be very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's confirmation of the reduction in the standstill rule from 20 days to six days. They asked me to press not only the Secretary of State but her noble Friend Lord Whitty to consider how soon they would be able to switch the six-day rule on to an emergency basis, so that in the event of a future outbreak the regulations could be introduced at that time of difficulty in the industry. Will my right hon. Friend address that issue?

Margaret Beckett: It depends a little on what my hon. Friend was being urged to advocate. If people are anxious that we might need to increase the six-day period in a more difficult situation because of the implications of a disease, I assure him that the Government would review the matter at an appropriate time. However, if some people in the industry advocate a return to the days of no movement restrictions, I find that hard to contemplate. No Government would be keen to risk that, not least because of the huge consequences of the recent outbreak for the industry and a range of other economic interests in rural areas.

John Hayes: It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's late conversion on livestock movements—[Interruption.] I say "late" because the industry and Conservative Members told the Government weeks, even months ago to change the 20-day rule because of the damage that it was inflicting. Hon. Members of all parties highlighted that. Does the Secretary of State understand that the Pauline conversion will be useless if the changes to the operating procedures cripple our essential livestock markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) suggested? The threat to those markets is profound and it has been well highlighted in Farmers Weekly, as the Secretary of State knows. Will she guarantee that changes to procedures on keeping animals overnight, washing and disinfecting vehicles and the distances that animals travel will be genuinely practical and cost neutral to the industry? As she is so worried about the import and spread of disease—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman gets one question.

Margaret Beckett: I have not forgotten that one of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues—I do not believe that it was him—could not understand the reason for maintaining the 20-day standstill. That was an extraordinarily foolish comment given that the Government had been strongly advised by two independent inquiries, and continued to be advised by the chief veterinary officer and our chief scientific adviser to maintain such restrictions.
	Far from being a late conversion, we moved to change the rule as soon as we received clear, further evidence, which we were advised to seek. As I said to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), we will do our best to ensure that the steps that we take are as practical as possible. The hon. Gentleman claimed that the changes would be useless if they cripple markets. I stress to him and to those on whose behalf he claims to speak that nothing crippled the markets as much as the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

Nightingale Hall Farm

Hilton Dawson: What action she intends to take in relation to the operations of the animal rendering plant at Nightingale Hall farm, Lancaster.

Alun Michael: The responsibility for regulating air pollution, including odours from animal by-product rendering plants, lies with the local authority, in this case Lancaster City council, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the revolting stink at the fats and proteins plant at Nightingale Hall farm in Lancaster has blighted the lives of thousands of people in the city for decades? Will he accept my congratulations on being close to achieving the effective regulation, which eluded us in 18 years of Tory Government and the blighted 27 years of my Conservative predecessor? Will he comprehensively resist any weakening of the odour boundary condition that he has suggested that he is minded to impose to protect my constituents, and thus ensure that he enjoys the honour and approbation of the fine, historic city of Lancaster?

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner of his further inquiry. Smells from rendering are known to be especially offensive and I appreciate that there has been a long-standing problem in his constituency.
	On stringency, my hon. Friend knows that the Government issued revised guidance on air pollution standards for renderers in 2000, which toughened previous standards and specified that plants should operate without offensive smells exceeding the process boundary, except in limited circumstances. A "minded to" decision letter was sent on 17 January about the plant in my hon. Friend's constituency, and comments were requested by 14 February. We will issue the final decision as soon as possible after considering the comments.

Corporate Environmental Reporting

Sue Doughty: What steps her Department has taken to encourage corporate environmental reporting; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Meacher: We have pursued action in several different ways. Most importantly, the Government have set out proposals for strengthening the statutory regime for company reporting in our White Paper "Modernising Company Law".

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall that in October 2000, the Prime Minister set a challenge to the top 350 companies to bring in environmental reporting by the end of December 2001, and yet a year later, only approximately a quarter are doing so? What is the Minister going to do to make that happen faster?

Michael Meacher: I am very keen that that should happen faster, and I certainly have sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. However, between 60 and 70 per cent. of companies in the top FTSE 100 now provide environmental reporting, and some of them at considerable length. About 30 per cent. of the top FTSE 350 report on their activities, with another 40 per cent. making some form of public statement about their environmental engagement. Matters are progressing, and as I said, the White Paper "Modernising Company Law" requires that about 1,000 of the most economically significant companies in the country include information on environmental, social and community issues in a new operating and financial review—which they will be asked to produce—where those matters are material to, or relevant to, the understanding of the business. After five years of exhorting industry, that is now the right way forward.

Linda Perham: I welcome what the Minister said in his initial response, but will the Government's commitment to greater corporate responsibility and the public reporting of corporate environmental standards, which they made last year at the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development, result in the implementation of the intergovernmental agreements through national regulations in this country?

Michael Meacher: I have already explained what we propose to do about environmental reporting. The wider issue of corporate social responsibility was on the agenda, and a decision was reached within the text of the WSSD. We are certainly keen to follow that up, and discussions are taking place within the Government as a basis for further, wider international discussions on how proper measures on corporate social responsibility can be implemented.

David Lidington: Is it not time for the Government to set more of an example to the private sector in terms of corporate environmental reporting? Can the Minister confirm that every Government Department is obliged to prepare a sustainable development report to show how its policies and expenditure plans help to deliver the Government's environmental objectives? These reports are currently kept secret, and rather than lecturing the private sector about its responsibilities, will the Minister commit himself today to making those Government reports public, and thereby start to practise what he is so keen to preach?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The Government Green Ministers Committee, which I chair, has published three annual reports that give detailed information on a whole range of indicators on the performance of all Government Departments. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I suggest that he look at those reports. I am extremely keen that there be full transparency and publicising of the performance of Government Departments—both where we do well, as we generally do, and where we do not do so well. I should also point out that the Government's framework for sustainable development on the Government estate requires Departments to report publicly on environmental performance in respect of environmental management systems, travel arrangements for staff and their environmental impact, and water usage. We are considering taking those measures further.

Pig Farrowing Systems

Julia Drown: What steps she plans to take to ensure that safe and effective pig farrowing systems are implemented.

Elliot Morley: We are funding research into the welfare of the sow and her piglets from farrowing to weaning. We are not yet able to recommend alternatives, because of the adverse effect on piglets.

Julia Drown: I thank the Minister for that reply. Animal welfare groups take the view that farrowing crates are unnecessarily cruel, and look to the experience of other countries that look after farrowing pigs in different ways. Has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry ways of creating commercial incentives to look into more animal-friendly ways of looking after farrowing pigs, and to examine not only crates but other issues such as hard flooring and supervision at birth so as to improve both the care of pigs and the survival of piglets?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Of course we want to improve the welfare of farrowing sows, but I am sure that she will understand that farrowing crates are used because of the risk of sows rolling on piglets, and piglet mortality. We have been funding a range of research that has considered the points that she has mentioned. Unfortunately, although some of the prototype farrowing crates performed quite well in research conditions, in commercial conditions the mortality rate was nearly double the normal rate. We are funding research into the management of sow and litter in a free-farrowing environment, which includes early life programming, stress responses in the farrowing sow, and an epidemiological study of risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality on commercial pig farms. All those studies are examining better ways of improving welfare, while recognising the commercial nature of the operation.

Angela Browning: I hope that the Minister will take account of any new animal welfare measures in the pig industry in the context of the rest of the EU, and that we will not take any unilateral action. We are all concerned about animal welfare, but I hope that he will emulate the example set by the Conservative Government when I secured Europe-wide agreement on a timetable for the abolition of veal crates. It can be done—and if the Minister wants any tips I shall be happy to share some with him.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Lady will know that I too had some involvement in some of those campaigns at the time. She will also know that we have reached EU-wide agreement to phase out sow stalls and tethers across the EU, as has been done unilaterally in the UK—although we are disappointed that the phase-out date is 2013; we would have preferred a much earlier date. We have made it a priority to advance animal welfare issues on an EU-wide basis, and also to include them in World Trade Organisation talks.

Gwyn Prosser: I welcome the Government's general support for the new EU directive that requires the provision of straw and other natural products in pigs' enclosures to enhance their well-being. However, groups that campaign for animals are bitterly disappointed to hear that the Government are considering watering down the directive's requirements and substituting plastic footballs on chains for those natural products. Will my hon. Friend reconsider, and implement the whole EU directive without dilution?

Elliot Morley: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we have no intention of watering down the directive. Some of the press reports that he may have read have been somewhat inaccurate; it is always a mistake to believe everything that we see in the newspapers. I can assure my hon. Friend that "manipulable materials" are such things as peat, compost substitute or straw, which pigs can manipulate, and which improve their welfare and the quality of their environment; things such as chains and balls are also included, but pigs can soon get bored with those. The directive covers a range of measures that are part of current good practice in the pig industry. We are pleased to see those standards being established across the whole EU. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not see pigs queueing up to join our Sunday league football teams.

Private Sewers

Paddy Tipping: What research she has commissioned into the condition of private sewers.

Elliot Morley: Mr. Morley—[Laughter.] Sorry, I meant to say "Mr. Speaker". I have not quite got there yet.
	W.S. Atkins has been appointed by the Department to carry out an 18-month research contract to identify and examine the problems arising from the current arrangements for existing private sewers, especially with regard to their ownership and maintenance. A consultation paper seeking views on possible options for overcoming the problems will be issued in the spring.

Paddy Tipping: Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the scale and long-standing nature of the problem, the research will be welcomed? When he is preparing the forthcoming water Bill, will he look closely at trying to address this issue?

Elliot Morley: I understand that this is an important matter in many hon. Members' constituencies, and my hon. Friend has been active in raising the problems of private sewers with the Government. The W.S. Atkins study is designed to ascertain the scale of the problem, and it will report in the spring. After consultation on the report, costed solutions will be prepared for consultation in the autumn. The water Bill will acknowledge some of the problems, and it will deal with sewer connections outside the curtilage. However, it is not designed to address in detail the problem that my hon. Friend has described.

John Bercow: I acknowledge that many unadopted private sewers are in very poor condition and would almost certainly benefit from substantial upgrading and investment, and that there is an argument for an industry-wide protocol. However, does the Minister accept that there is almost no problem known to human kind that would not be worsened by nationalisation?

Elliot Morley: It is not a matter of nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government have agreed a protocol with developers and builders to ensure that the standard of sewers is consistent. That helps in relation to adoption, but I accept that there are problems. Many of them are the result of the failure of private companies to install sewers properly. In some cases, they expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. We must look at that carefully, because it is no consolation to the many people who are suffering as a result.

Joan Walley: It is all too easy for private sewers to be out of sight and out of mind. It is important that the Atkins research is used to best effect. Will my hon. Friend undertake to make sure that the research's recommendations are included in the Ofwat review of water prices, with a view to adopting private sewers?

Elliot Morley: The review that is currently under way is looking at the regulator's role in matters such as sewer flooding. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), this is a big issue. I know that my hon. Friend has also been active in the matter, and that she has particular problems in her constituency. The W.S. Atkins study is the right way to proceed. We need to understand the scale of the problem, which may be quite large. We also need to understand the costs involved, the implications, and how best to address the problem.

Water Framework Directive

Desmond Swayne: What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the European water framework directive on UK industry.

Elliot Morley: The Government published an assessment in 2001 and we plan to publish an updated version later this year.

Desmond Swayne: The initial consultation included an estimate that implementing the directive would cost agriculture between £0.6 billion and £2.9 billion. When will the final consultation begin? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that it will include the draft regulations?

Elliot Morley: The consultation is under way, and we have had two versions already. The hon. Gentleman will know that implementation of the water framework directive will last a considerable number of years—up to 2015. There is therefore plenty of time to look at the issues involved. However, we cannot escape the issue of diffuse pollution, to which agriculture is the biggest contributor, especially with nitrates and phosphates. We are addressing that problem by establishing nitrate-vulnerable zones. Much of the work included in the costings that have been made is already in place, and that is why the possible totals vary so widely. We are aware of the implications for agriculture, but we also accept that serious issues remain that must be addressed.

John Gummer: Will the Minister bear it in mind that European legislation has had an almost universally valuable effect on water in this country? Without that legislation, Britain's water would be in a much worse state. Does he agree that the directive is another measure that should be supported universally?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I do agree, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The water quality of our rivers has consistently improved, as have drinking water standards. European directives have played a part in achieving those improvements.

Norman Baker: Will the water framework directive not mean a lot more policing for the Environment Agency? How will it achieve that when it has said, for example, that it will take it at least 20 years to visit even those farms with a high risk of nitrate pollution? The agency is also reviewing only 1 per cent. a year of industrial discharges in the north-east, rather than 25 per cent. a year. Clearly, the agency needs more money, yet the chief executive told Members of Parliament yesterday that there will be a 12 per cent. cut in environmental protection money next year. Why is that happening?

Elliot Morley: The Environment Agency will receive more money next year. It wants to address a range of issues under its programmes and plans. It is taking a risk-based approach to enforcement, and I think that that is right. There are enforcement implications in that, but the water framework directive contains many common-sense measures that will address water quality and the ecology of our river systems. There will not necessarily be huge implications for enforcement, but I recognise that there will be some.

Jonathan Sayeed: By the end of the year, the Government will have consulted three times on the water framework directive. How valuable are those consultations when up-to-date cost analysis figures have yet to be published? Have the Government's own consultants not said that the cost to farming will be around £287 million a year? Can the Minister guarantee that the directive's implementation will not be adversely affected by budget cuts at DEFRA? Why is there no reference to the water framework directive in the draft water Bill?

Elliot Morley: The water Bill is complementary to the water framework directive, which is designed to achieve different objectives, particularly on catchment plans and catchment management. We are addressing costs in the consultation, but, inevitably, in dealing with a measure that will cover the period to 2015, it will not be possible to have clear costings until we know exactly what the implications are. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a great many of the delivery mechanisms for implementing the water framework directive are currently being put in place. Those costs can, therefore, be taken into account, and they will not fall on farmers, industry or consumers.

Rural Proofing

Andrew Rosindell: If she will make a statement on the rural proofing of legislation.

Alun Michael: Just over two years ago, the rural White Paper made the commitment that all relevant Government policy developments would be rural-proofed. Legislation is included within that definition. I am pleased to say that our colleagues across Government are increasingly working productively with us on the rural agenda.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister will be aware that the Countryside Agency reported on 11 April 2002 that progress in the vital area of rural proofing had been very slow. He will also know that a further report prepared last October has not been published. Why is that so, and does the policy remain integral to Government thinking on rural policy?

Alun Michael: Last year's report indicated that a lot of progress had been made, but that there was a great deal more to be done. I agreed with that judgment at the time. The report prepared halfway through the year was intended to help accelerate the process in Departments and was not meant to take the place of the annual report, which will come out this year. I hope that that will demonstrate the progress that has been made by Departments across Government. I work closely with the Government's rural-advocate, Ewen Cameron who chairs the Countryside Agency, and we have met colleagues across Government to accelerate the process.

Bob Blizzard: When my right hon. Friend next does some rural proofing, will he rural-proof the roll-out of broadband? The rural parts of my constituency simply do not have access to broadband, which is crucial to developing the kind of new small businesses that are vital to regenerating the rural economy. For a long time, my constituency suffered poor transport infrastructure with narrow, winding roads. It seems now that the same is happening with the electronic roads—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not answer that question; it was far too wide.

Colin Breed: Will the Minister give us some assistance as to what is happening at present on rural proofing for broadband?

Alun Michael: May I answer both that question and the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)? The Government have recognised the importance of broadband and the need to rural-proof the delivery of broadband in this country. I am pleased by the way in which colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and in the rural development agencies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is broadband the Minister's direct responsibility?

Alun Michael: The rural proofing of it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister will know that it is not legislation.

Radioactive Waste

Stephen Ladyman: When she expects to make recommendations about the disposal of radioactive waste.

Margaret Beckett: Following consultation, we and the devolved administrations will set up a new independent body to review all long-term options for managing UK solid radioactive waste and to make recommendations to us. We shall establish it as soon as possible and we hope to receive its report and announce our decision on the UK's long-term strategy by 2006.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. She is right to want to come to the correct decision and to bring people along with her. However, it seems to me that a consensus has emerged among environmental groups and the industry that we should deposit that material underground in a way that makes it possible to recover it later if necessary, and that the only reasonable place for that is at Sellafield. As we shall reach that conclusion whether we take one year or four years to discuss the matter, should we not make the decision now and concentrate on making the process safe and determining how to compensate the local community for its involvement?

Margaret Beckett: I agree with my hon. Friend that at present there seems to be a growing number of voices making some of the points that he has just made. However, experience of the subject suggests that as soon as anybody starts to think that there is a consensus and to coalesce around it, a lot of other voices are heard saying something wholly different. Select Committees in both Houses recommended that the course of action that we are pursuing is right. As it will probably take billions of pounds and about a hundred years to deal with the issue, it is probably still worth trying to put in the investment up-front to get it right.

Eric Martlew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Nirex considered Sellafield, it found that the geology of the area was not suitable?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I am aware of that. That is part of what I meant when I was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He identified a number of elements and said that a lot of people think this or that and that a lot of people think that there should be retrievable underground storage. That is all true, but unfortunately as soon as one starts to get more concrete and to decide where the pattern of agreement might emerge, difficulties emerge with it. We have set in train a process to try to ensure that we build up an understanding of what really is the broad basis of acceptance and that is the right thing to do.

Sustainable Development (Mozambique)

Harry Barnes: What arrangements she has made to discuss matters of sustainable development and climate change with the Government of Mozambique.

Michael Meacher: We do not have any immediate plans to discuss sustainable development or climate change with the Government of Mozambique.

Harry Barnes: Might it not be fruitful for the Government to engage in such discussions? The Government of Mozambique overcame tremendous problems caused by floods in that country about two years ago so, given our experience of flooding in this country, there might be a useful cross-fertilisation of ideas. For instance, the Speaker of the Mozambique Parliament organised a fund to assist people in Yorkshire, so we should be doing everything that we can to ensure that lessons are learned on both sides.

Michael Meacher: Of course, I entirely agree with that. Offhand, I do not know how much aid was provided by the Department for International Development at the time of the severe flooding in Mozambique in 1999 and 2000, as a result of the extreme climatic conditions, but I have no doubt that it was considerable. I should certainly welcome further collaboration between our countries. The key point, as to whether climate change is a significant factor in the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding throughout the world, is the importance of ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I am hopeful that that will be achieved in the first half of this year. Russia is the only country that still needs to ratify for the treaty to come into operation. President Putin has already given a commitment that he wishes that to happen and we are hopeful that the formalities will be achieved by the middle of the year. If they are, it will certainly be of considerable importance to Mozambique and many other sub-Saharan African countries.

Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Mozambique made a most generous contribution to the people of the Vale of York following the severe flooding in parts of the area in November 2000? Would it not be appropriate, therefore, for the Department to seek an early meeting with the Mozambique Government with a view to undertaking joint research into the causes of climate change, which is leading to more flooding on flood plains such as the Vale of York?

Michael Meacher: Of course, substantial research is already being undertaken—the United Kingdom is a world leader in this—by the combined capabilities of the Hadley research centre, which is part of the Met Office, and the university of East Anglia. I am keen that there should be closer co-operation between our two countries. Mozambique made a remarkable and very welcome offer to the Vale of York and to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I am happy to discuss with the Department for International Development how we can deepen that co-operation to the benefit of both countries.

Tony McWalter: Given that my right hon. Friend's Department has a significant number of environmental and agricultural scientists, would it be appropriate for him to try to ensure that scientific expertise is made available more widely? In particular, will he channel some of that expertise through DFID to ensure that countries such as Mozambique may tap into it, as expertise is often precisely what they lack?

Michael Meacher: I very much support that proposal. There is no doubt that the way in which we can most help the developing countries is through more quickly and effectively building up capacity there, with more technological transfer and the spreading of scientific and technical expertise. Britain has a real offer to make. We already do such work. As hon. Members have mentioned Mozambique, I will certainly speak to my colleagues in DFID to find out how much further that work can be taken.

CAP

Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on the latest proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy.

Margaret Beckett: I welcome publication of the Commission's legislative proposals for reform of the CAP, which were discussed for the first time at the Agriculture Council earlier this week. They will form a good basis for what will be hard negotiations in which we shall be both positive and proactive in pushing for an early, substantial and balanced agreement that delivers a workable and fair deal for farmers.

Archy Kirkwood: While I acknowledge the need for CAP reform, does the Secretary of State share my concern about the present financial viability of cereal holdings throughout the United Kingdom? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the totality of prices available to cereal farmers plus the arable aid do not meet production costs? Later today, Scottish farm income predictions will show that the incomes of cereal producers in Scotland will suffer a further fall. Against that background, cereal producers are worried about the continuing proposals to cut intervention prices and to introduce further compulsory set-aside. Will she be careful to get enough flexibility from the review of the CAP to ensure that the viability of cereal holdings throughout the UK is guaranteed for the future?

Margaret Beckett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned about getting the right basic package as well as sufficient flexibility to reflect local problems. I confess that I am not immediately familiar with the sort of figures that he expects for the incomes of cereal farmers in Scotland. Certainly, there is a welcome increase in statistics on farm incomes. We expect those to be in the public domain in the near future. While I do not suggest for a second that that will resolve the considerable problems faced by people in the farming community, it is obviously beneficial.

Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Consumers Association's calculation that the average family in Britain pays a £16 farm tax every week and that 80 per cent. of that money goes to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers? If the CAP is to be reformed, is not it essential that the £1 million subsidies paid to huge farming businesses are changed so that those small farmers whose future is seriously threatened get a fair deal?

Margaret Beckett: There is always argument about specific figures that come out in different studies, but I certainly accept, as most people do, that the CAP's present structure places considerable costs on consumers and taxpayers. Certainly, it must be one of the goals of reform to try to change that and produce a system that is fair, but we would like to see structures and proposals emerge from the reform package that are fair to all farmers.

Michael Jack: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that French attitudes to CAP reform may undermine Europe's position in the context of the Doha declaration and the World Trade Organisation talks that are to come? Is she in any way building a coalition of support to counter French positions and to ensure that, under the modulation proposals, sufficient money is made available for rural redevelopment?

Margaret Beckett: It must be a prime goal of the negotiations to ensure that enough money is available on the right terms, with the right flexibility and low level of bureaucracy, for rural development. I entirely agree with that point. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's initial remarks, I am anxious to ensure that all of us in the EU get the balance of our negotiating approach to the WTO meetings right. I am very conscious of the suggestion that, because Europe was not proactive at a sufficiently early stage in the Uruguay round, we ended up getting the sticky end of the negotiations. There is a strong area of discussion in the Council of Ministers about how we get that balance right.

John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in years gone by, the CAP brought ruin and despair to many third-world agricultural economies because of the policy of dumping cheap food on those economies, with obvious consequences? Will she do her best to ensure that those policies are not repeated in future, so that cheap food is not dumped on the third world? Does she also agree that, despite the best efforts that were mentioned earlier, there is an increasing feeling that—perhaps partly because of the French position—the CAP is ultimately doomed, which would provide a sort of solution to the problems that many Labour Members would welcome?

Margaret Beckett: It is many years since I first came to work full time in politics, and one of the first things that I had to do was write a pamphlet explaining the CAP—I have never quite got over it. So I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about the difficulties that have been caused not only elsewhere in the world, but in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) highlighted a few moments ago. Ever since I wrote that pamphlet, I have believed that CAP reform was an urgent necessity.

David Lidington: Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government share the Country Land and Business Association's analysis that, on the basis of the Commission's current proposals, British farmers, who receive about 13 per cent. of direct payments under the CAP, will be expected to shoulder 26 per cent. of the costs of CAP reform? Will she also say whether the Government consider that that would be a fair outcome for British agriculture and whether she will be campaigning for British farmers to bear a more proportionate share of the costs of reform?

Margaret Beckett: Without entirely endorsing the precise figures—various people come up with different studies—I can certainly say that we have some concerns about the precise impact of the legal proposals that are on the table at present, and we have concerns about whether they are entirely fair to British farmers. I have made that point already, very forcefully, to Commissioner Fischler, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to make it in the negotiations.

Rural Post Offices

David Taylor: What recent discussions she has had with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about the continued viability of rural village post offices.

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had very productive discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the rural post office network last summer. Since then, I have been closely involved in discussions and decisions leading up to the DTI's announcement in December of a £450 million support package over three years for the rural network. That is a very significant and welcome announcement, and I will continue to work with that Department on this issue.

David Taylor: In the DEFRA public service agreement, which the Minister probably has on his bedside table, target 4 specifies that the Department must improve the accessibility of services to people in rural areas. How will the progress report on public service agreements, which is due to be published this spring, deal with the fact that 1,000 village post offices have closed since 2000?

Alun Michael: The target is to improve accessibility to cash in rural areas. Post offices make an important contribution to achieving that target, and DTI officials have been fully involved in drawing up our plan for how we will achieve it, but that is not the only way of doing it. Increasingly, if we are to provide the service that people need in rural areas, we must recognise that sometimes people make choices that do not involve using local services. They might access services when they visit town or travel to work, reducing the call on local public and commercial services. We will therefore have to find new ways of making sure that we achieve such objectives. I assure my hon. Friend that the support to the post office network is an important part of making sure that we improve the accessibility of services for people in rural areas.

James Gray: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to look at the forms and leaflets produced by the Post Office on how to apply to receive child benefit and pensions in cash rather than through a bank account? If he does so, he will discover that the Post Office seems to be directing people intentionally towards the bank account option, making it extraordinarily difficult for them to get benefits in cash. A particular point of concern is that the forms will only be produced on 24 March to be ready for 1 April. Does he agree that if people get their benefits through bank accounts rather than in cash, that will spell doom for hundreds of rural and urban sub-post offices?

Alun Michael: I have discussed that issue with colleagues and the Post Office. What the Government are seeking to do is to make sure that choice is available to people, not to push them in one direction or another. People in rural areas should be able to exercise choice, as should people living in urban areas. The hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the very difficult issue of making sure that services are available to people in rural areas. I am sure that his comments about forms will be considered by those who design them. It is a question not just of forms, but of availability of services.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, we welcome the discussions that are taking place. Can further discussions take place to support rural post offices, and what role can my right hon. Friend's Department play in that? Will he also ensure that there is a continuation of next-day delivery, and that discussions take place with Postcomm as soon as possible to ensure that that happens?

Alun Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Although I do not intend to stray into areas that are the responsibility of other Departments, we are keen to work with them to make sure that a high quality of service is provided to everyone. On the provision of post office services, several pilot projects up and down the country—I have referred to the Waters Upton initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will open in a few weeks' time—are bringing together a number of commercial and non-commercial services. As a result, more services will be viable in rural areas than would be the case if they stood alone. That is the way that we need to approach the provision of services in rural areas. I share my hon. Friend's concern about ensuring that there is equity of service for people in those areas.

Retirement Policy

Andrew Murrison: What her Department's retirement age policy is.

Alun Michael: The normal retirement age is 60. All staff below the senior civil service may elect to remain in service until the age of 65 subject to continued efficiency and organisational need.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister will be aware that there is a wide range of retirement ages in the agencies and the Department for which he has responsibility. Will he comment on that? Is it the result of personal choice or departmental expediency? How will the forthcoming EU directive on equal treatment affect his Department's policy?

Alun Michael: We seek to provide choice for people. We also want to ensure that people are in post who are able to provide the standard of service that the public expect. We have changed our recruitment policy to include those over the age of 60. However, everyone remains subject to the current maximum retirement age of 65. Flexibility and ensuring that we have the staff available to serve the public is the balanced approach that we take.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the business questions, I have a statement to make.
	Hon. Members have raised with me their concerns that the substance of ministerial statements has been reported in the media before being presented to this House. Particular reference was made to the Defence Secretary's statement on "Iraq: Further Contingency Preparations" on 20 January and the Education and Skills Secretary's statement on "The Future of Higher Education" on 22 January.
	I have made it clear, both from this Chair and in meetings with Ministers, that it is of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of Parliament that this House is the first to hear of important developments in Government policy. I recognise the pressures and difficulties that often face Ministers as a result of press speculation about forthcoming statements. My impression, nevertheless, is that in general Ministers recognise and comply with the convention that I have enunciated.
	As regards the two recent statements referred to, I have taken the matter up with the Ministers concerned. So far as the statement on Iraq is concerned, I have received an assurance that neither Defence Ministers nor officials trailed its content with the media. This assurance is supported by the fact that the advance reports in the media contained significant inaccuracies and seriously underestimated the strength of the forces being deployed.
	As to the statement on higher education, the Secretary of State has represented to me that the majority of the proposals in the White Paper and the package as a whole received their first airing in the House. He has, however, acknowledged that, in order to ensure that the very many people who would be affected by his proposals on student funding would not be alarmed or misled by speculative stories in the media, he said more than he would have wanted in response to a direct question on television before making his statement. He has expressed his regret about this in a letter to me and has made clear his acceptance of the need to come first to the House.
	I propose to leave the matter there.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 3 February—Remaining stages of the European Parliament (Representation) Bill.
	Tuesday 4 February—Consideration of the First Report Session 2002–03 (HC 171) from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.
	Wednesday 5 February—Motion on the Police Grant report (England and Wales) 2003/2004.
	Motions on the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2003/2004 and the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001/2002: Amending Report 2003.
	Thursday 6 February—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	Friday 7 February—Private Members Bill.
	The provisional business for the week after will be:
	Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 11 February—Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords]. Followed by motion to take note of various European documents relating to Agenda 2000 and operation of milk quotas.
	Wednesday 12 February—Opposition Day (4th, 2nd Part). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced. Followed by proceedings on the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill. Followed by motion to approve the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2003.
	Thursday 13 February—Second Reading of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill.
	Friday 14 February—The House will not be sitting.
	In the subsequent week, we will take the constituency week.

Eric Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
	Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury Select Committee said in its report of 16 January:
	"It would be helpful for the Chancellor to announce the date of the Budget as far in advance as possible (at least two months)"?
	That has not happened yet. I rather hope that the Leader of the House may tell us something today about the date of the Budget. What is going wrong? Why have we not been told about the Budget? Is it because the Chancellor is worried that the economy is running into rather choppy waters and is not happy about what he might say? Can the Leader of the House please help us in this matter? If the Treasury Select Committee says that it believes that we should receive proper notice of the Budget, I hope that the Government will pay some attention. Time is already effectively running out.
	In the context of the Budget, can the Leader of the House give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House again to clarify what he said the other day:
	"On the cost of the dispute, I told the Select Committee that I thought that it was about £5 million, although there are other estimates. However, it is probably something like £1 million a day, but we have to pay more if we are using troops during the dispute, so it may well be £2 million a day. There are negotiations between different Departments, and various costs are involved, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot be precise. However, I have said that the net cost to the Department is £70 million; if other Departments are included, it is about £100 million, which is a considerable sum"? [Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 723.]
	I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to be helpful to the House, but it would be even more helpful if he were properly briefed and then returned to the House to tell us what the devil that all meant.
	You have just stated yet again, Mr. Speaker, your firmly held views on Ministers allowing information to get out into the public domain before Ministers come to the House. Yet again it has happened today. I heard on my radio this morning in some detail what was going to happen about the aircraft carrier statement this afternoon. I heard talk of 2,000 jobs. I heard talk of 10,000 jobs being saved. I heard specific references to shipyards. I heard that this very important contract would be divided between BAE and Thales.
	I suppose that the Leader of the House will tell me that that is all idle speculation, and that somehow it was nothing to do with Ministers. But the sad truth is, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of what you have said repeatedly, this is happening over and over again, and it is the Ministry of Defence that is doing it on nearly every occasion. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us what on earth he or the Prime Minister, or both of them, will do to the Secretary of State for Defence about his disrespect for the House. He is now a recidivist and a serial offender, and it is time something pretty drastic was done about it.
	There is a business motion on the Order Paper today which seeks to limit the debate on 4 February in order to allow the House to start voting at 5 pm. I am not sure that I see the point of that. I do not see why we cannot vote at the end of business at 7 pm. We used to do it after 10 pm, after all, so I am not sure why we cannot have our Divisions after 7 pm. We need additional time even more now to clarify just what is going on on the vital issue of the reform of the House of Lords at the highest level of Government.

Patrick Cormack: Common sense has prevailed.

Eric Forth: On 23 January, at column 441, the Leader of the House said that
	"finding common ground with others on where the best compromise can be found with the largest support for the form of the Chamber"
	is a priority. He went on to say:
	"I would be surprised if that compromise did not require some form of mixed membership."
	He went on to say:
	"It is not my impression that that White Paper was unpopular because it proposed 20 per cent. elected members; the difficulty with public opinion was in relation to the 80 per cent. appointed. I am doubtful about whether we will remove these anxieties on the part of public opinion by going for 100 per cent. appointed."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 441.]
	You can imagine my surprise when just yesterday, at column 877, the Prime Minister said:
	"Do we want an elected House, or do we want an appointed House? I personally think that a hybrid between the two is wrong and will not work."—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 877.]
	Hold on a minute—I thought that the Leader of the House said that some form of mixed membership was the most desirable outcome. I am worried about the way in which that matter is progressing—or not. At the highest level of government the Prime Minister is saying one thing—[Interruption.] Before Government Members get too excited about the free vote—I am grateful that we are to have such a vote—I remind them that the Labour manifesto in 2001 said:
	"We are committed to completing House of Lords reform . . . to make it more representative and democratic".
	I believe that we need more time for next week's debate and that a business motion should not truncate the debate at 5 o'clock because I want to hear the Prime Minister explain how his manifesto commitment to a democratic upper House can be fulfilled by his obvious desire for an appointed upper House—that seems rather difficult to explain. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us who is more true to the manifesto—the Prime Minister or him. Finally, to whom should Labour Members now look for guidance on the issue—to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or their conscience?

Robin Cook: I anticipate that the House will be interested in the last passage quoted by the right hon. Gentleman so, if he will forgive me, I will canter quickly through his other points, which were merely the preamble to that point.

John Bercow: Eat it slower.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman's advice is always welcome but, on this occasion, I shall disregard it.
	On the date of the Budget, nothing has gone wrong. It would be unusual if it had been announced in January. Indeed, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that so well has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done in managing a sound economy in Britain that we look forward with anticipation to him having a further opportunity to remind the Opposition that we have the lowest unemployment in Europe, the lowest inflation for 40 years and the highest growth rate of the G7 countries.
	On the comments about the cost of the fire dispute, I would not have thought that there would be a dispute between the two Front Benches about the fact that the fire dispute necessarily costs a considerable sum of money. I myself have repeatedly heard the Deputy Prime Minister refer to a sum of about £100 million so far. All Members should bear in mind the fact that that £100 million is coming out of other parts of the Deputy Prime Minister's budget, at the expense of regeneration budgets, expenditure in deprived communities and people who are not well-placed to pay in return for the continuation of the dispute. I therefore hope that the Opposition agree with us that it is best to resolve the matter as quickly as possible and get a solution to the dispute.
	On the issue of ministerial statements, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we live in a free country and that this is the real world. In a procurement decision, there will be lots of people, including those in industry, not just in the Department, who know what is going on. There is sometimes humbug from members of the press who complain that they are being leaked to, as they themselves tour Britain, breaking legs if necessary, to get advance notice of an announcement. I fully understand the importance of Ministers making the announcement of policy first in the House. I welcome the fact that in his statement Mr. Speaker has just said that he believes that Ministers should seek to comply with that, and I assure the House that I shall do all that I can to reinforce that message.
	On the last matter that the right hon. Gentleman raised—which, I must confess, I had anticipated would come higher in his order of priorities in the questions that he put to me—my understanding is that the Prime Minister will not be able to join us on Tuesday. That is no doubt a matter of great disappointment to the Opposition as it is to me, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is a free vote. As he correctly identified yesterday, there are a range of views on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman is correct: my own view is that what went wrong with the last White Paper was that the figure of 20 per cent. elected did not command public confidence, nor, as far as I could see, would it have commanded a majority in the House of Commons.
	It is my personal and very humble opinion that by removing the 20 per cent. elected element and substituting zero, we will not restore the public confidence that was missing the first time round. I fully agree with the Prime Minister that we do not want a second Chamber that is a rival to this place. We want a second Chamber that is a partner to this place in restoring respect for Parliament and making sure that we command the nation's attention when we speak. To have a partner who can assist us in the task of restoring the standing of Parliament, we need a second Chamber that is legitimate, and as our manifesto correctly identified, to be legitimate in the modern era, it needs to be democratic. To be democratic, some, at least, of its Members need to be elected.

Paul Tyler: It's the way he tells 'em. On this serious issue, we look to the Leader of the House to robustly defend the House, parliamentary democracy and the freedom to speak our minds. Will he therefore dissociate himself from the way in which the Lord Chancellor and some of his other noble Friends have been referring with such disdain—even with contempt—to the whole process of election to this place? Since the noble Lord, as far as I am aware, has never been elected to anything, will the Leader of the House indicate that he, at least, respects the democratic process, and believes that a democratic mandate and a mandate at a general election are important?
	No doubt some will take notice of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are attempting to muzzle Labour MPs and peers, but does the Leader of the House accept that it is wrong, as is suggested in a report today, that they also wish to direct what will happen after the vote next week, as regards the work of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform? Whatever the vote on an indicative Division next week in both Houses, is it his intention to ensure that the Joint Committee will continue its work and will be given an opportunity to fulfil the instructions that it has previously had from the House and from the other place? Surely he must be prepared to defend us against those, be they every so mighty, who wish to undermine the work of Joint Committees?
	Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that this morning, the former leader of his party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, has come out in favour of compulsory voting, in a desperate attempt to increase turnout? Will he take time, please, today to read the report of the debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, when the matter was discussed. A number of Members, including some notable and distinguished members of his own party, stated that the only way to increase turnout is to ensure that people's votes count and have an impact on the result. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore take note of the fact that fairer voting means a better turnout in elections?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trailing his coat in the last question, but right now, if he will forgive me, I have enough battles to fight.
	May I clarify the position in relation to the Joint Committee, as there seems to be some confusion about that? We have passed a resolution setting up the Joint Committee. That resolution sets out a remit and a mandate for the Joint Committee to prepare detailed proposals for the House on a second Chamber. As a staging post in that process, we invited the Joint Committee to give us options for the possible composition, and it is on those options that we will vote next week. But the Joint Committee has not fulfilled its remit or its mandate. It needs no fresh remit or mandate to meet again to consider the votes in the House and how those might guide its future work. Indeed, to prevent it from doing so would require a fresh motion of this place, so I see no interruption to the work of the Joint Committee from the votes next Tuesday, and I hope that it will meet rapidly afterwards and assess the way forward.
	The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the Lord Chancellor is not elected. That may be so, but I have never been in any doubt of his confidence that, if he submitted himself to an election, he would be returned. I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman on his observation that the debate in the House of Lords showed contempt for those who are elected. From reading the speeches, I felt that the emotion was rather more one of fear than contempt. I was very struck by the number of Members of the other place who said that they must not let in any elected representatives because even a few would swell in number until they took over the whole place. That seems to be recognition of the greater legitimacy and authority that comes from elections, and is not a case for resisting the principle.

Alan Simpson: In relation to freedom of speech, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on arrangements for the national anti-war rally in London on 15 February? At the moment, it appears that there are to be no speakers allowed and no rally in Hyde park. That would be as outrageous and unacceptable as it would be incomprehensible to those who believe in freedom of speech, and would provoke acts of civil disobedience which all of us would deeply regret. In order to prevent any further Talibanisation of our democracy, will my right hon. Friend assure us that that rally will go ahead and that members of the public who oppose war in Iraq have the right to say so?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point; I fully understand his concern. I know of his deep concern for the environment, and therefore put to him that the concern that has been expressed by Royal Parks police and others relates entirely to the fact that they do not allow rallies in the royal parks during the winter months when the ground is soft. We have had record rainfall over the past few months. If 400,000 people were admitted to Hyde park, that would have a significant impact.
	Indeed, several other bodies, including the Countryside Alliance—this shows the impartiality of the Royal Parks constabulary on this matter—have been refused permission for rallies in the park during the winter months. There is no problem whatever with such an organisation having a rally in the park when the ground is firmer following the spring. In the meantime, I encourage those who wish to make their point to do so by finding a place where there is firmer ground under their feet than that in Hyde park.

George Osborne: The conviction of my former constituent Sally Clark for the murder of her two children must rank as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in recent times. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be an urgent inquiry into how the Crown Prosecution Service handled that case, and into the behaviour of the Home Office pathologist? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a broader look at the way in which the criminal justice system handles the cases of mothers who are accused of murdering their very young children, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding medical evidence of the death of infants? May we have a parliamentary opportunity to discuss such matters?

Robin Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of his constituent. I should think that the whole House would share his concern over what must have been an appalling ordeal for both her and her family. Plainly, lessons will need to be learned and absorbed by a number of different agencies—obviously the Crown Prosecution Service for one, as well as the police and the forensic service. It would be unhelpful for the Government to seek to respond in the 24 hours immediately after the decision, but I am aware that several bodies have said that they will be following up the case and examining it closely. Plainly, this matter cannot rest with yesterday's decision. It must be followed through so that we can ensure that there can never again be such a peradventure of justice.

David Taylor: As an accountant, I welcomed yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on a tougher regulatory regime of independence, objectivity and integrity. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Secretary of State has asked for parliamentary time next week to explain whether that tougher new approach will extend to those accountancy firms that are stitching up the taxpayer by sitting on advisory bodies on private finance initiatives, advising bidders, selecting tenders and writing apparently independent reports on what a good thing PFI is? Should we not have a widespread, independent review of that expensive farce, particularly in the light of reports such as yesterday's on the Lord Chancellor's expensive mistake with Libra?

Robin Cook: I think that it would be unwise to comment on that last point. To respond to my hon. Friend's general comments, I fully share his welcome for the statement made from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend on the improved standards of accountancy and independence of audit. In the wake of the Enron scandal, all of us would agree that it is important that we should do everything possible in the United Kingdom to ensure that audit is independent and accountancy is of a high standard of integrity. I note what my hon. Friend says about potential conflicts of interest, and I shall certainly draw them to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is important that we ensure not only that there is no conflict of interest but that there can be no suspicion or accusation of it.

Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on Stormontgate before the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is debated in the House? We have been waiting for that statement for some time. We understand that it has been available, and we expected it to be made much earlier.

Robin Cook: I cannot commit myself to a statement before that debate. I fully understand the interests of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents on this issue, and I am well aware of how important it is in Northern Ireland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be conscious of that interest when he addresses the House next week.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for next Tuesday's vote on the House of Lords to be truly comprehensive and reflect all views, the early-day motion calling for the abolition of the House of Lords that has been signed by well over 100 of us should be put to the House, perhaps at the beginning of the debate, to see whether we can get a majority to ensure that the democratic processes are carried out totally and in full?

Robin Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I want to ensure that the House has the best possible opportunity to express the range of views in it. I have two difficulties that I invite my hon. Friend to understand and share. The first is that both he and I fought the election on a manifesto that committed us to reforming the second Chamber, not to abolishing it. Indeed, I might be making some animadversion to that in Tuesday's debate. Precisely because I do not wish to take away any part of the force of any phrase in the manifesto, it would not be helpful for me at this stage to commit myself to abolishing the second Chamber.
	Secondly, we set up the Joint Committee in order that it might make proposals to the House on the options, and I shall be putting those seven options to the House on Tuesday. It would be improper of me to interfere with the options that it has put to the House. All I would say to those Members who favour abolition is that they should be careful when they consider which option to vote for on Tuesday that they are not misled into voting for one that was sold to them on a basis other than abolition. Anybody who votes on Tuesday for an all-appointed House may wake up on Wednesday and find that that is what they will get.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when he asked the Leader of the House to extend the time for debate on Tuesday to 7 o'clock? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us wish to express our support for a wholly elected House of Lords? Does he understand that we want to express our deep disappointment at the Prime Minister's betrayal of his manifesto commitment? Does the Leader of the House also understand that we want to support him in his dispute with the Lord Chancellor on democracy? We wish to make the point that the Lord Chancellor has never been elected to any political office and that he owes his present position in Parliament to his close friendship with the Prime Minister.

Robin Cook: I am of course always grateful for support, but sometimes one should accept it with a degree of caution and self-preservation. On the question of the length of the debate, I remind the House that we have had a full day's debate on the matter in the recent past and many days of debate on it over the past few years. It is not my impression that anybody's mind will be changed by another two hours of debate on Tuesday.

Jim Marshall: May I say to my right hon. Friend as a friend of long standing that I shall start to fear for his future unless he begins to control his sense of irony and does not play to the Opposition gallery too readily, as he appears to be doing?
	On a more substantive point, is my right hon. Friend aware that the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is causing a great many problems? Will he look into the problem, particularly in relation to single people arriving in the United Kingdom who fail to claim asylum immediately? Will he arrange for an urgent debate, or failing that, will he urge the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the issue, so that we can question him about it more closely than we have been able to do hitherto?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern. He and I were elected on the same day and are among the few hon. Members left who were elected on that occasion. My observations on the House of Lords are based on views that are well known to the House and are of long standing. In the context of a free vote and having a range of views, I shall continue to stand by that position.
	My hon. Friend raises an issue that has been explored in the House in the past, especially in the context of the recent Bill. I understand the difficulty arising from individual cases that are brought to the attention of hon. Members in a constituency capacity. It is difficult for us to write Acts of Parliament that necessarily apply universally, but cater for all the different circumstances and individual cases that will come to us as constituency Members. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Home Office. Although I do not wish to hold out the prospect of an immediate statement, I am sure that we will return to the issue on a number of occasions in this Session.

Robert Key: Please can we have an early debate on the role of the Lord Chancellor in the setting of rules of evidence in criminal cases? The release of Sally Clark caused great rejoicing in Salisbury, where she grew up as a child, but it comes as no surprise. Our hearts go out to her wonderful family and her father, who is still a constituent of mine. However, my constituent Angela Cannings is still in prison having been convicted in very similar circumstances, and five similar cases are ongoing. The Leader of the House says that he hopes that the same thing will never happen again, but it will do so as long as we allow juries to convict on the basis not of evidence, but of the controversial opinions and theories of so-called medical experts. That is against natural justice.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any other individual cases in the present circumstances, but I understand what he says about the evidence given by forensic experts. I am sure that, in the light of the recent decision on Sally Clark, there will necessarily be a review to ensure high standards of integrity, openness and transparency in forensic evidence.
	I should like to add one caution: I think that it would be a mistake to encourage the view that there are widespread or general miscarriages of justice in the British courts. Undoubtedly, there are individual circumstances in which things go wrong, and we should vigorously pursue such problems, put them right when we find them and seek to learn any lessons. However, that should not be taken as calling into question the great mass of decisions that are reached in our courts.

Alice Mahon: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the rally that is due to be held on 15 February? He will be well aware that it is part of a worldwide protest against George Bush's war for oil in Iraq and that people do not understand why the Government are suggesting at this late stage that preventing the spoiling of grass in Hyde park is a more worthwhile cause than saving the lives of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Robin Cook: This is not a Government decision; we have expressed no view on the matter and sought to exert no influence. It is entirely a matter for the Royal Parks. Nor is it a new decision by the Royal Parks, which have a long-standing policy not to permit major rallies in the winter months when the ground will not be firm. I fully understand the importance of members of the public having the opportunity to express their views and I would be the last person to stand in the way of their doing so. I urge my hon. Friend and those organising the rally to find other opportunities.

Patrick Cormack: If the Leader of the House is truly concerned about the reputation of this place and having an effective Parliament, will he allow us an early opportunity to vote again on these ridiculous new hours, which are undermining the work of Parliament? Is he aware that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House, including some who voted for the changes, who share that view?

Robin Cook: The House voted on those matters, as the hon. Gentleman says. It did so on the basis of free will and a free vote, and it came to a considered view. Only three weeks have passed since the arrangements took effect and I think that it is far too soon to reach any mature judgment. However, it is not my impression that the decision would be reversed if we were to put it to a vote again.

Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? There seemed in his reply to be a slight tension between reminding Labour Members of our manifesto commitment and emphasising the idea of a free vote. We had no opportunity to vote last week and we will not have an opportunity to vote for abolition in the coming week. If he could find a way of allowing us to have a vote on abolition and to express our views, he might then find that one or two of us are prepared to accept as a second best one of the many proposals that are due to be considered next week, even though they are pretty feeble.

Robin Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course, I often reflect on many of the answers that I have given in respect of the business statement, and I am happy to reflect on the one to which he refers. However, it would be false of me to suggest to the House that, at this late stage of proceedings, I see much prospect of adding any more options to the seven that will be put before the House. We set up the Joint Committee on the basis of a decision taken by this House. Indeed, my impression at the time was that it was warmly welcomed. To be honest, I am not aware of any submission made to the Joint Committee suggesting that it should consider abolition, and nor was such a proposal within the remit that the House approved. The seven options before us necessarily flow from that process. At this stage, I do not see much prospect of my succeeding in the task on which he invites me to embark.
	We have a stark choice that we must face up to. If we want a legitimate second Chamber to work as a partner with us, it must have a democratic mandate and the authority that goes with it. If we are not prepared to accept that, I do not resile from the proposal that my hon. Friend puts to me: if we are not prepared to do it, we should perhaps be honest and recognise that the consequence is not to have a second Chamber.

Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is totally wrong to deal with a matter as important as assistance to fishing communities by means of a written statement, when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew full well that no fishing question had emerged high in the ballot today? The questions that fishing constituents want answered are clear: why was there no access to European funding, which means that that money is now available to build up other European industries while ours is being run down, and why was there no new Treasury money, which means that the Department's existing budgets are heavily constrained? Why can the Government find so much to prepare for war in the Gulf, but so little to help our fishing communities in a time of crisis?

Robin Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have debated fisheries policy on several occasions, including, I think, as recently as last week. I am advised that there are no other available EU grants for fishing, and we are certainly not aware of any potential source to which we are not applying. On the question of fresh money, I point out to him that, on top of the £85 million already allocated for the fishing industry for the next three years, an additional £60 million has been forthcoming. Those are not inconsiderable sums and there are other hon. Members with industries of their own in trouble who would have welcomed that support.

Iain Luke: Once my right hon. Friend gets a chance to read the Strategic Rail Authority's updated strategic plan for the next 10 years, I am sure that he will view it with concern, given that, like me, he represents a constituency distant from the House. The scaling down of targets and emphasis on the west coast line mean that the hope for improvements up and down the east coast main line will be pushed back. As I serve the distant community of Dundee, I am very concerned, like many others from the north-east, because improvements are not even a distant prospect. Will he hold an emergency debate on the proposals, so that hon. Members can discuss issues relating to investment in the east coast main line?

Robin Cook: I fully understand the interest of many hon. Members in the impact of the strategic rail plan on their constituencies and towns. The important point on which we can all agree is that investment in the railway industry is at its highest ever and that we must ensure that that is sustained throughout the entire period covered by the 10-year plan. I understand that my hon. Friend is perfectly reasonably concerned about the east coast main line. Indeed, I share that interest as a Member representing a Lothian constituency. However, it is important to us all that we get the west coast main line right and that the SRA succeeds in the objective that it has set itself of ensuring that the rail industry brings costs under control.

David Cameron: As a keen follower of the turf, will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the Government's wholly ludicrous plans for compulsory passports for every horse, donkey and pony in the country? Does he agree that that has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with bureaucracy originally imposed in Brussels? Can he find any purpose in it, or any mischief that it is trying to overcome, apart from the fact that the French like eating horses and do not want drugs to enter the food chain? Can we have an urgent debate in the House about the Government's plans so that those of us who want to maintain the status quo—I hope that he will join me in that—can try to convince the Government of our case?

Robin Cook: I must declare an interest as a trustee of the British Horse Society, which has an excellent scheme to assist its members in providing appropriate horse passports in response to the directive. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the many people in Britain who purchase horses and ponies find it valuable to be able to have confidence in what they are buying and to know the history of the horse.

Tony McWalter: Knowing that my right hon. Friend is a passionate opponent of ageism—a passion that seems to increase as the years go by—will he soon allow a debate on the so-called National Institute for Clinical Excellence, specifically on early-day motion 316, which deals with age-related macular degeneration and the possibility that some people will be allowed to go blind simply because they are regarded as being too old?
	[That this House believes that people suffering with wet age-related macular degeneration are entitled to full access to treatment that could prevent them from losing their sight; is aware that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently issued provisional recommendations that photodynamic therapy be withheld from many people with age-related macular degeneration; notes that, if accepted, these recommendations will lead to approximately 5,000 people each year suffering from predominantly classic wet age-related macular degeneration having treatment withheld; and calls upon the Government not to agree to these views, but instead to support wider access to photodynamic therapy for all age-related macular degeneration sufferers.]

Robin Cook: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that the older I get, the more passionate I become about ageism. We have gone well out of our way to ensure that we have a national health service that treats all patients equally and thus treats it elderly patients fairly. I would deprecate the view that because one is older one should get a lesser standard of care, although we have to be realistic in recognising that, as people get older, there is sometimes less that medical science can usefully do to intervene. However, I assure him that the broad principle that nobody should be discriminated against on the ground of age is correct.

Nicholas Winterton: May I refer to the business for next Wednesday, namely the allocation of resources to the police and to local government? Is the Leader of the House aware that that is important to every Member of this House? Although the top figure for the additional resources appears encouraging, most Conservative areas are being very badly dealt with, my borough of Macclesfield in particular. Had not a floor been put in the figures, Macclesfield would be getting below what the Government believe they should be getting. The time allocated next Wednesday is inadequate for all Members to express a view, so will the Leader of the House provide a longer debate? If he cannot, will he ensure that no statement takes place on that day?

Robin Cook: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman accepts that our proposed figures are encouraging. Indeed, police numbers are at a record level. I assure him and his constituents that there is nothing in the formula, and nothing in the Government's approach, that provides for political discrimination against areas because of their political affiliation. We have provided three hours for the debate on that day. I always weigh very carefully an application for a statement against the House's need to proceed with its business. In fact, I am often pressed in business questions to provide for more, not fewer, statements.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the conditions in which young offenders are kept in adult prisons? Following the suicide in April 2001 of my constituent Daniel Curnock, who was 17 years old, a decision was made not to allow young offenders to be kept in Gloucester prison. That decision was subsequently reversed owing to capacity problems affecting surrounding prisons. Many issues relating to young offenders in adult prisons need to be tackled, and that could be done in such a debate.

Robin Cook: I hear with interest what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its concern and shares his anxieties about young people who are detained and feel driven to suicide for whatever cause. I regret that it has been necessary to put young offenders in a prison that he describes as having been considered inappropriate. As he will be aware, we face substantial demand and pressure in relation to the prison population, which necessarily results in decisions that we would otherwise not wish to have made. I shall draw his observations to the attention of the Home Secretary, and I am sure that they will be taken into account in any future allocations to prisons.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 431, which addresses the serious issue of reducing child deaths from abuse and neglect.
	[That this House believes that the numbers of children in this country who die through abuse and neglect is unacceptable and that public policy has failed to reduce the level of child deaths over the last 30 years; is concerned that the Chief Inspector of Social Services records in her eleventh annual report that three per cent, of children on the child protection register and five per cent, of looked-after children are not allocated a social worker, up to 4,000 children without a safety net; is further concerned that there is no systematic follow-up for child deaths or co-ordinated strategy to reduce child deaths in this country; calls on the Government to place area child protection committees on a statutory footing by placing a duty on all the agencies involved in child protection to participate in the work of the committee and support the local authority in discharging its child protection role; and further calls on the Government to establish an independent Children's Commissioner to promote and protect the rights of all children.]
	Given Tuesday's statement on Lord Laming's report into the terrible torture of Victoria Climbié that led to her death, can the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the findings and 108 recommendations contained in that report, so that Members on both sides of the House can express their opinions, and especially, for many of us, our support for a children's commissioner for England?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and troubling issue. I am pleased that we have already committed ourselves to implementing 82 of the 108 recommendations in the Laming report, which is not a bad scorecard. We have also committed ourselves to a Green Paper on child protection, which will explore some of the report's more strategic and longer-term recommendations. I fully understand that hon. Members will want other opportunities to discuss the matter and to examine Ministers on it, but I suggest that the best time to do that is when we have the Green Paper.

Glenda Jackson: When will the House be afforded the opportunity to make true the Prime Minister's reply yesterday that decisions on committing British troops
	"are taken by our Government, our House of Commons, and our country"—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
	by having a full day's debate, in Government time, with a substantive motion, on the issue of what seems increasingly to be an illegal and immoral war in Iraq? Will the Leader of the House further ensure that such a debate is not eroded by the introduction of ministerial statements, as in the past three debates on Iraq, which reduces the time that Back Benchers have to raise their constituents' justifiable concerns?

Robin Cook: I am well aware of the interest in Iraq on both sides of the House. I am also very conscious that it is important for the Government, in responding to that, to provide adequate time for the House to debate the issue. In fairness to the Government, we have provided opportunities to examine the issue, and, indeed, a substantive motion for the House to vote upon. On that occasion, the House voted by a very large majority to support the strategy that the Government are pursuing through the United Nations. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall return to the House at all future stages, and I imagine that there will be other occasions on which the House will have an opportunity to vote on the matter.

Bob Spink: Being remarkably well informed, the Leader of the House will know that tomorrow evening is the 50th anniversary of the 1953 floods that devastated many communities across the south-east and caused 59 residents of Canvey Island to lose their lives. Will he join me in paying respects to those victims of the flood and to those who showed so much courage on that night in rescuing people and animals? Can he find time for a debate on ensuring that flood defences are substantial enough to prevent any further devastation, bearing in mind rising sea levels?

Robin Cook: Of course, we are fully aware of the importance of flood defences. The hon. Gentleman, who is a fair-minded Member, will acknowledge that we have put substantial additional investment into that. We were pleased that, during the recent floods, the numbers who were inundated were fewer than on the previous occasion. Having said that, I fully understand the importance in his constituency of remembering what happened 50 years ago, and am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing to his constituents, through him, our concern and dismay at what happened and our understanding of the emotions that it must give rise to.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does the Leader of the House recollect that, in the 25 years when he was not a Minister, he skilfully tabled thousands of named day questions? Is not it paradoxical that, now he is Leader of the House, we are being restricted to five named day questions a day? That removes an item from the Back-Bench Members' toolbox. Can we review that decision?
	Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking on the Government's behalf that, when Departments ignore questions that do not have a named day, they at least provide a holding reply after 10 days rather than the abuse that we get, especially from the Northern Ireland Office? Some Departments simply ignore questions and hope that the issue will go away. Such questions are neglected not for weeks but for months.

Robin Cook: I shall take up my hon. Friend's last point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend gives me more credit than I deserve. The generation of those who were elected in the 1970s did not ask anything remotely approaching the number of questions that is now normal in any week in the House of Commons.

Andrew MacKinlay: Why not?

Robin Cook: That is a fair question, which I shall attempt to answer in my memoirs. I shall confine myself today to the present. Since the previous general election, we have faced a sharp increase in the number of questions, even compared with the record number in the previous Parliament. It is striking that half the questions that are tabled are regarded as urgent questions for reply on a named day. The Procedure Committee endorsed that in its interesting recent report on the subject. We have accepted the Committee's proposal, which places no restriction on the number of questions that hon. Members may ask, but suggests that it is difficult to believe that any hon. Member would require five urgent questions in a day.

George Young: Reverting to Tuesday's debate on the House of Lords, did not the Prime Minister do something far more serious yesterday than potentially undermine the legitimacy of the second Chamber? By seeking a clear mandate for a more democratic House of Lords and trying to renege on his contract with the electorate, has not he undermined democracy in the primary Chamber of Parliament?

Robin Cook: I do not believe that there could be a more democratic process than giving the House of Commons, which represents the nation, a free vote on what it considers the right option. As I have often done, and will do again on Tuesday, I urge hon. Members to seize the opportunity to ensure that we find a centre of gravity that can create momentum for reform.
	I agree with the Prime Minister that we should seek a constitutional settlement that will last for a long time, not only one Parliament or a short time. I doubt whether any reform that is not a democratic solution will have the legitimacy to stand the test of time.

Llew Smith: The Leader of the House knows that I raised QinetiQ in business questions on 9 and 16 January and in early-day motion 531.
	[That this House disapproves of the proposals set out in the Ministry of Defence departmental minute, dated 17th December 2002, to retain in the public sector liabilities amounting to almost £100 million as part of the deal done with the Carlyle Group to sell-off the defence evaluation organisation QinetiQ; believes it is wrong to encumber taxpayers with liabilities while selling off public assets to the private sector; further believes that the method of informing hon. Members by a departmental minute deposited in the parliamentary libraries just two days before the Christmas recess is an insufficiently transparent way of keeping parliament appraised of the sell-off strategy and detailed provision; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to postpone any further action in respect of the QinetiQ sell-off until parliament has had a proper chance to debate the implications.]
	Does my right hon. Friend know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence recently described the process of the sell-off as "deeply repugnant"? As it is likely to cost the taxpayer more than £100 million, is it too much to expect the House to debate the matter?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the Select Committee's report, which I shall consider with interest and care. However, as I understand it, the £100 million is not a cost but the potential liability, to which few imagine that the Government will be exposed. I pursued the question of process, which my hon. Friend raised on previous occasions, and it is well understood that in future we must ensure that memoranda are placed in the Library at a time that permits 14 sitting days to follow, not when the House is about to go into recess.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Future Aircraft Carrier

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future aircraft carrier programme.
	The 1998 strategic defence review set out the need to improve the capabilities of our armed forces to meet the challenges of a changing strategic environment. The new chapter to the strategic defence review, which builds on our operational experience since 1998 and takes account of events that followed the 11 September attacks, has reinforced those requirements.
	Our maritime forces need the ability to project power still further afield. We have therefore set out our most extensive shipbuilding programme for more than a generation. In the next few years, six Type 45 air defence destroyers, six new amphibious warfare vessels and other essential support ships will enter operational service.
	Two new, larger, more versatile aircraft carriers will be central to those new maritime capabilities. They will have a vital role in a wide range of military tasks, from peace support operations to high-intensity war fighting. They will offer a coercive presence that could contribute to conflict prevention and provide a flexible and rapidly deployable base when our forces need to operate without host nation support.
	As I announced last September, those ships will carry the world's most advanced stealthy and supersonic jump jets—the United States-United Kingdom project for the joint strike fighter. At the same time, I announced that we had chosen an adaptable design for the carriers, which will allow us to make best use of the ships over their projected life of more than 50 years. Both decisions show the Government's determination to equip our armed forces with the capabilities that they need.
	The programme is massive and technically challenging, with the two ships alone costing around £3 billion. It will provide employment for up to 10,000 people throughout the United Kingdom. The warships will be the largest and most powerful vessels ever produced for the Royal Navy. At around 60,000 tonnes, they are approximately three times the size of our current carriers. They will rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country anywhere in the world.
	The competition for the prime contract has been closely run between the two bidders, BAE Systems and Thales UK. Both are to be congratulated on their proposals to deliver the key new capability to our armed forces. Both are major defence suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. They each make an important contribution to the United Kingdom's economy, providing investment and employment in manufacturing and key science and technology areas. Thales UK employs around 12,000 people throughout the United Kingdom, and BAE Systems, including through its joint ventures, employs approximately 51,000.
	A competition of such complexity and scale necessarily involves intensive scrutiny of technical specifications, value for money and wider industrial benefits. We have used a continuous assessment process to evaluate both companies' work and performance. We have assessed their ability to keep to their project schedules and to establish an appropriate relationship with the Ministry of Defence team. That pioneering process has provided us with a wealth of information to help our decision making.
	Two key findings emerge. First, both BAE Systems and Thales UK have performed to a very high standard. There is no doubt that competition has led to major benefits and sharpened the performance of both companies. The competition process has produced impressive designs.
	Secondly, if the carriers are to enter service on time, both companies would need to augment substantially their available design resources to achieve the necessary maturity before manufacturing can begin.
	Our detailed analysis shows that each company has significant strengths. BAE Systems has displayed a sound understanding of the project's complexities in its project management and prime contracting, and has developed a good relationship with all the key shipyards. It also demonstrated the skills that are necessary to integrate the different systems into an effective warship. Thales UK has provided an innovative design that is flexible enough to meet our needs. It has strengths in a number of key areas, including in weapon and defence systems and the interface between the ship, aircraft and flight deck operations.
	We have therefore decided that, to deliver value for money and provide the best capability, it is important and, indeed, sensible to exploit all those strengths. We judge that a partnership appears to offer the best means of drawing in the necessary resources and expertise to deliver a programme of such magnitude. We envisage that this alliance will be led by BAE Systems as the preferred prime contractor, with responsibility for project and shipbuilding management. Thales UK will assume a major role as the key supplier of the whole ship design. We foresee that the Ministry of Defence will also take up a formal role in the alliance for those parts of the programme for which we are rightly responsible. That would involve the management of appropriate risk and contingencies and the provision of assets such as suitably trained manpower and the JSF aircraft.
	This innovative approach builds on the principles of smart acquisition and the defence industrial policy that was published last October. It will enable us to make the most of the resources and strengths of both companies and the skills and expertise of the Ministry of Defence project team.
	Both BAE Systems and Thales UK have indicated their willingness in principle to participate in such an alliance. The approach will be based on proper customer and supplier relationships, working collaboratively to achieve challenging targets. It will be underpinned by a robust contractual arrangement. Risk will be allocated to the party best suited to manage and mitigate that risk and the rewards will be shared so that it is in the interests of all parties for the programme to succeed. Further work will be required with both companies to establish the detailed contractual arrangements.
	Subject to reaching a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations, and with subsequent confidence that the alliance is operating effectively during the final part of the assessment phase, we intend to reach the final investment decision in spring 2004. At that stage, we will place the prime contract and permit the alliance to move into the demonstration and manufacture phase, when the ships will actually be built. We remain fully committed to achieving our declared in-service dates for both ships in 2012 and 2015 respectively.
	I anticipate that hon. Members will be particularly interested in the shipbuilding element of the carrier programme. We believe at this stage that the best way forward is for the carriers to be built by a combination of four yards: BAE Systems Marine at Govan, Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, Swan Hunter on Tyneside, and Babcock BES at Rosyth. The involvement of other yards has not been ruled out. The precise arrangements will be the subject of discussions between the alliance and the yards, to determine the best value for money and work load capacity. We anticipate that the engines will be provided by Rolls-Royce. It is clear that the benefits for the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry and its related supplier chain across the country are significant. I can assure hon. Members that, despite recent suggestions to the contrary, the vessels will be designed and built in the United Kingdom.
	This vast programme of work should create or sustain up to 10,000 jobs right across the country. It offers a significant opportunity not only for the shipbuilding industry, but for many small and medium-sized companies all around the United Kingdom. For example, the Bath-based company British Maritime Technology has played a key role in developing the Thales UK design. Other companies, such as specialist paint suppliers and engineering firms, will also have the opportunity to engage in the programme as it progresses. Ultimately, hundreds of suppliers right across the United Kingdom will be able to participate.
	Today's announcement by the Government is good news for our armed forces and good news for the nation's defence. It demonstrates the Government's support for the British manufacturing industry and for British jobs, and I commend it to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for giving me a copy in advance, but I have to say to him that this is not so much a decision as a fudge. The addition of two full-sized aircraft carriers to the Royal Navy's fleet, along with the introduction of the new joint strike fighter, will represent a huge increase in Britain's ability to project, sustain and protect military force anywhere in the world. So we welcome any progress towards the launch of the new ships, but we fear that this programme is now beset by uncertainty.
	First and not least, there is the vexed issue of money. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the money for those ships will be available without the need to cut other programmes? The armed forces and the equipment budget are already overstretched. It is clear from the forward defence equipment plans that there is far more on the Government's shopping list than current defence spending levels will support, alongside all of the UK's other defence commitments.
	Secondly, the Secretary of State describes his announcement as "innovative", but he is being a little modest. He has not so much announced a decision as the start of a whole new process: the formation of an as yet ill-defined alliance that is entirely unformed and agreed only "in principle". He remains committed to the in-service dates of 2012 and 2015—dates that are long after he is likely to have departed—but if in a year's time his proposed alliance is judged not to be operating successfully, as he put it, where will that leave the Government's programme? The so-called smart procurement policy was meant to avoid the vexed issue of work sharing. This project started out as a clear competition, but has not the Secretary of State bottled out in the past few weeks by unexpectedly deciding to split the work between the two main competitors? Is he not now effectively saying that Thales won the competition, but that British Aerospace is the prime contractor and has to adopt the Thales design?
	What is the basis for deciding the split of work, and is it subject to ministerial direction? Will the contract be arbitrated under English or French law, and who will ultimately be responsible for achieving project milestones and holding to budget? Does not this decision artificially to split the contract have very serious implications for the way in which future defence competitions should be conducted? Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State could never have justified awarding the whole project to a French company, given that there is no possibility of the French Government's ever allowing British companies to compete on the same terms in France? Should he not have realised that at the outset, rather than discovering it only now?
	We recognise that Thales UK is a major UK investor and employer, and that work placed with it will create British jobs in British factories, but some work will certainly go to France. I merely ask whether the Secretary of State shares the anxiety of many in our defence industries that UK companies simply do not have the same opportunities to buy companies, and to compete in French markets on the same terms. In return for nominating Thales as a "key supplier"—the company is still effectively owned and controlled by the French Government—what is President Chirac giving Britain, except a regular kick in the teeth for the Prime Minister on issues such as agricultural reform, his outrageous invitation to President Mugabe and his determination to split NATO over the issue of Iraq?
	Will the Secretary of State now agree that the company to which he periodically refers as "British" Aerospace is in fact a British company? Will there now be an end to the unseemly public criticism of what is Europe's largest defence contractor and one of our biggest industrial employers and export earners, from which he has carelessly wiped millions in stock market value?
	This decision raises many questions about the future of defence procurement policy, which the Government will have to address. The final order for those ships is important for British industry and vital for the future of UK defence, but today's announcement by the Government has introduced more risk and more uncertainty—not just for this project but, by implication, for the entire defence equipment programme.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks on defence matters on the Opposition's behalf, has yet again come to the House with a litany of anti-European—in this case, anti-French—rhetoric. He has a problem, because if he examines the NATO alliance, he will discover that a significant number of European allies are members of NATO, and we work with them regularly. I know that there are many in the Conservative party who would probably like it to revert to its state before the debate on the corn laws, but unfortunately, when the hon. Gentleman talks about projects for the 21st century, his arguments sound distinctly outdated.
	The key question that the hon. Gentleman must answer is what would the Conservative party have done differently from the announcement that has just been made. [Interruption.] In all the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical, anti-European flourishes from the Opposition Front Bench, I heard not a shred of a suggestion as to what exactly he would have done differently. [Interruption.] If he says—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much chatter from Front Benchers on both sides of the House. We are trying to hear a reply from the Secretary of State.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	What the hon. Gentleman must say at some stage today—perhaps he will have opportunities other than the one he has just wasted—is whether he would have been prepared to jeopardise this vital programme for our armed forces and the benefits that flow across a range of British industrial expertise, by refusing to take advantage of the strengths of BAE Systems and Thales UK and the various bids that they made. If he is saying that he would choose one bid or the other, he is actually saying that he would rule out of consideration, and exclude from benefit to the UK's armed forces, the considerable expertise that each of those companies would make available. [Interruption.] I can hear mumblings on the Opposition Benches, so obviously in the course of his rambling response, the hon. Gentleman did not make all the points that he wanted to make. I invite him to think carefully about the ways in which such project negotiations are conducted, because if he did so he would see that the proposal set out is very clear, tight and well defined, and is clearly of considerable benefit to United Kingdom manufacturing industry.
	Let me comment for the House on just one aspect of the hon. Gentleman's obsessions: the reference to French law. Had he listened carefully, and had he thought for a moment about the benefits to the United Kingdom, he would have recognised, as do many of his hon. Friends, that that was a smear, perpetrated deliberately to arouse the anti-European, anti-French rhetoric that has come to characterise the modern Conservative party. If he does not recognise that that is a disgrace, there are plenty of people on the Benches behind him who do.

Paul Keetch: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement. The Liberal Democrats believe that the new carriers that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today are essential to the United Kingdom's future expeditionary strategy. I congratulate him, and the Government, on procuring them.
	We firmly believe that it is right for the carriers to be built, but we must be careful about the spin on this. It reminds me of Lewis Carroll, whose Dodo said:
	"Everybody has won, and all must have prizes."
	We must be sure that the Government can demonstrate that the process has been competitive, not political. In other words, has the alliance turned over the nature of smart procurement?
	Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he has had with his French counterpart about the new French carrier? Does the decision announced today open the possibility of any advantages for the Ministry of Defence in future co-operation and possible future contracts for British companies on that carrier? What discussions has his Department had with the two contractors about the building of a hybrid carrier that could land both conventional carrier aircraft and the STOL—short take-off and landing—aircraft now being suggested? After all, that would ensure that there was proper co-operation with French and American aircraft carriers. Does the decision exclude such a possibility?
	Can the Secretary of State confirm—yes or no—that the recommendation from the Defence Procurement Agency was for a single prime contractor? Does not a single contractor represent a single point of control? Who will really run the project? Will it really be BAE Systems? Who will own the rights to the design of the future carrier: BAE or Thales? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a single example of an alliance producing a contract on time and on budget? In short, after a three-year contest, why have the Government decided on such an alliance? If it is such a good idea, why was it not decided on at the start of the contract?
	The Liberal Democrats believe that the future carrier programme is essential to our British military future, and we congratulate the Government on fulfilling their obligations under the strategic defence review. I hope that the alliance will work, but it will be for the Secretary of State to demonstrate that that design does not become one of our major overruns.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support—I think. He asked a number of practical questions, and I shall endeavour to deal with them. Overall, I took his response to be supportive; if subsequent textual analysis reveals that I am wrong, I apologise both to him and to the House.
	The great advantage of the approach that we are adopting is that we get the best out of a vigorous competitive process. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about the nature of the competition, they have only to look at the various press reports about it over the past few months. In that competitive process, real advantages have been brought to bear, in terms both of design expertise and, crucially, of allowing the Ministry of Defence to monitor continuously the process that each of the companies has adopted.
	That is unlike what happened in previous competitions, when the first that a Department would see of the competition would be the product at the end, and then it would have to take a decision between two or more finished products. We have been able to monitor the way in which each company has approached the competition, which has had benefits for the companies and, I believe, strong benefits for the country. That is why at this stage we are confident that we shall be able to incorporate the best elements of both companies in the alliance approach, while maintaining an interest on behalf of the Government in how they work together. There are other examples of such co-operation. Type 45 will be built in a co-operative way, and that, too, will involve the best expertise that the United Kingdom can bring to bear.
	It is not appropriate for me to comment on advice from officials at this stage, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that at every stage there has been absolute agreement within the Ministry of Defence about the best way forward. That has meant that we can be confident in the recommendations that we are making and the decisions that we are announcing to the House today.
	As for the hybrid character of the project, I dealt—last September I think—with the proposal that the carrier will be adaptable. It does not make sense at this stage, either militarily or financially, to develop a carrier capable of taking both types of aircraft, but we are ensuring that the carrier could be converted if necessary, given a further generation of strike aircraft, to accommodate a different type of aircraft. That will guarantee the lifetime utility of the platforms that we propose to build.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have an indefinite amount of time available for further exchanges on the statement, so I appeal to the House for short, single-part questions and crisp answers.

Bruce George: I hope that the Secretary of State will not construe any mild criticism of his decision as xenophobia. I hope that the Defence Committee will soon inquire in more detail into the nature of the decision, but what I as an individual ask for now is some reassurance. The Secretary of State said that BAE Systems would be a prime contractor. Will it have the opportunity to choose systems made by BAE, and not simply be a prime contractor but have to choose all Thales systems?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that, as Sir Robert Walmsley said, a carrier is just a box? That is the easy bit. The difficult bit is the systems that go in it and on it—and those are the bits that I want some assurances about. I want to be assured that genuinely British companies will have the opportunity of bidding for and winning the contracts for them.
	Finally, echoing the words of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Defence spokesman, I really hope that this generosity and this alliance will be reciprocated. Otherwise, people will see it in rather more xenophobic terms.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. As he rightly says, it is the weapons systems incorporated in modern fighting ships that are their key characteristic. I assure him that there will be vigorous competition to ensure that not only do we have the best equipment for our armed forces, but the need to promote and protect vital high-tech industries in the United Kingdom is satisfied.

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the procurement decision, but I strongly oppose the decision that the Secretary of State has announced to split the contract. I want to support British industry, and I have done so for all of the 32 years that I have been in this place. The French do not have a very good reputation for building large ships. How many jobs has the Secretary of State sacrificed to the French by splitting the contract, rather than giving the order to BAE Systems, whose proposal I have strongly supported all along?

Geoff Hoon: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that not a single job has been sacrificed to the French. As I emphasised, unless he and some of his hon. Friends are suggesting that Bath is now somehow part of greater France—

Don Foster: No.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is protesting that that cannot possibly be the case, so the design work was concluded well within the territory of the United Kingdom. That will remain the position. However, I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is a strong and consistent supporter of UK industry. I am delighted to have his support for this proposal.

Alan Campbell: Those of us with an interest in shipbuilding in the north-east and memories of the closure of the Swan Hunter yard some eight years ago will greet the announcement as excellent news for the region. Does my right hon. Friend agree, now that a Labour Government have created this opportunity for the revival of shipbuilding on Tyneside, that it is up to companies and the work force to make the most of it?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I visited Swan Hunter some years ago and recognise the revival that has taken place. Opposition Front-Bench Members may bluster, but the previous Conservative Government did not come to the House once in 18 years to announce the construction of two carriers of this size and type.

Martin Smyth: I regret that the Harland and Wolff yard was not included in the announcement, but may I welcome the inclusion of four British shipyards, along with Thales? They will contribute to the economy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Member's support. Thales is an important employer in Northern Ireland, where the Ministry of Defence already has a ship under construction. We have played our part in respect of the people there, and want to continue to do so.

Linda Gilroy: In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that the involvement of other yards, besides the four that he named for building, would not be ruled out. Will he give an assurance that the proposals for certain aspects of design, commissioning and through-life support that were part of the Thales bid by Devonport Management Ltd. are not ruled out? Will they still receive full and fair consideration?

Geoff Hoon: As I said, the benefits of this massive programme will spread right across the UK. I do not rule out any contribution that can be made. Obvious benefits will accrue to certain shipyards as a result of my announcement, but there will also be real benefits across the UK, involving many companies situated far from the sea. It is important that we bear that in mind.

Mark Hoban: What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to Vosper Thornycroft, which employs many people across south-east Hampshire, about the share of the shipbuilding work that it will get as a result of today's announcement?

Geoff Hoon: Clearly, as must be the case in any event, that remains to be negotiated. However, I am sure that the company, its employees and the people living in the immediate area will be delighted that the yard will be one of those responsible for the massive amount of work that will come to the UK. Following so closely on the work being done on Type 45, this is a very important opportunity for a significant UK employer.

Frank Field: Thankfully, more than 1.5 million more people are in work than when the Government were first elected. However, that prosperity has not yet spread to all our shipbuilding constituencies. If the tide of joblessness is to be reversed, it is crucial that my area can win some of the subcontracting work. Will my right hon. Friend give some idea of the number of new subcontracting jobs that will be created by his announcement today?

Geoff Hoon: The overall estimate is that some 10,000 jobs will be created or preserved by the announcement. Clearly, there will be significant opportunities in subcontracting, not least in areas of high expertise such as the one represented by my right hon. Friend. We shall monitor that very carefully as the benefits of these decisions spread throughout the UK economy.

Angus Robertson: May I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, and welcome the announcement of domestic procurement? Last year, the Ministry of Defence said that, in procurement terms, there was a shortfall to Scottish taxpayers of £670 million. How will priority be given to sourcing work to the Clyde, Rosyth, Greenock and Nigg, which has an outstanding fabrication tradition?

Geoff Hoon: Given the very considerable benefit that will flow to Scotland as a result of an announcement made by a UK Secretary of State for Defence, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should say whether an independent Scotland under the leadership of the Scottish National party would contribute to the programme—or even whether such a country would want to be defended by these ships. The policy of the hon. Gentleman's party is to take Scotland out of NATO, so I assume that he would abandon any requirement that the ships be used. If so, he should tell the people of Scotland how his party would defend the country in that eventuality.

Tony Worthington: This is a very welcome announcement for Clydeside. It gives the area's shipbuilding industry the biggest boost that anyone can remember, and we must use the opportunity. However, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clarify one point? He said that he sees the role of the Ministry of Defence as providing assets such as suitably trained manpower. I hope that that is so, as I do not think that either of the contractors realise how much education and training is needed to rejuvenate the industry. We must make sure that the education and training sectors can meet the challenge being set them.

Geoff Hoon: The matter that my hon. Friend raises has been discussed across Government, and a number of Cabinet colleagues are concerned to ensure that it is resolved in the way that my hon. Friend describes. Clearly, with a project of this kind following so closely the Type 45 announcement, the benefits to Scottish shipyards are obvious and palpable. Equally, however, as those benefits come onstream, we must ensure that we have the right sort of trained personnel to take advantage of what is a significant opportunity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, and I shall look to it again as we deal with the challenging tasks ahead.

Richard Ottaway: I welcome the Secretary of State's interim statement, although the crunch statement will come in spring 2004, as I think he said. However, Britain is the world's fourth-largest economy, and it is the nation that built the generation of carriers that included the Eagle, Victorious, Bulwark, Hermes, Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal. How have we got ourselves into a situation that means that we have to rely on the expertise of a foreign country to produce the best possible contract? Will the right hon. Gentleman conduct an inquiry into what has gone wrong with our defence industry, to ensure that this embarrassing situation does not arise again?

Geoff Hoon: I shall say this once more, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. The Bath-based company, British Maritime Technology, played the key role in developing the Thales UK design. It is based in Bath and, as far as I am aware, it employs people from the locality. I am not aware that there is a huge number of people in Bath of French origin or nationality. It would not matter even if there were, as the benefits of that excellent design will still flow to the UK. I am tempted to give the hon. Gentleman a detailed account of the failures of 18 years of Conservative government, when no warship orders on this scale were placed. There were massive cuts in the amount of money spent on defence, and a significant rundown in the equipment available to the UK's armed forces. This Government are having to make good that legacy.

John Lyons: Any fair-minded hon. Member will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. His name will be toasted on the Clyde and elsewhere this evening when the very good news gets out. Rolls-Royce's involvement is important and will be welcomed across the nation. I welcome the proposal to involve a project team. Will my right hon. Friend consider speaking to BAE Systems, which has listed 200 redundancies? It would be great if that threat could be removed and everyone could participate in the work.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's fair-minded support for the project, and for the way in which he has pointed out the wider industrial benefits for Scotland's shipyards, and for companies such as Rolls-Royce that operate in England and Wales as well as Scotland—[Hon. Members: "Northern Ireland."]—and Northern Ireland. The decision will be of real benefit to the United Kingdom and should be welcomed by all Members and by great companies in the UK and their employees.

Don Foster: I share the Secretary of State's concern that the Conservative tirade against Thales totally ignores the fact that many excellent British businesses were involved in its side of the deal. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his specific reference to the excellent work of British Maritime Technology, which is based in Bath, and assure him that today's announcement will ensure that the company can go forward with bids to do work in other countries as well as in the UK.

Geoff Hoon: That really is a complete answer to the xenophobic nonsense that we have heard from the Conservative Front Bench. We live in an increasingly integrated global economy, and unless Conservative Front Benchers recognise that, rather than sniping constantly at our partners and allies, they will have little future in the 21st century.

David Cairns: When I sat through many briefings from both companies, it was clear to me that each had major strengths. My right hon. Friend has outlined in his statement a creative and imaginative solution.
	May I make one specific point? In previous programmes on which there have been overruns, there has been a fault line between those who design the ships and the shipyard management. Is my right hon. Friend completely confident that that major part of the programme will be carefully managed so that those who hold the jobs that will undoubtedly come to the Clyde will create best-quality ships that will in turn attract other orders from overseas?

Geoff Hoon: A key strength of the BAE Systems bid was its relationship with the shipyards and understanding of the problems posed once a project moves from design to manufacture. That is a strength of the company, and one that we identified as part of its contribution to the bid.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The House has a habit of saying, "It's good to buy British." Can the Secretary of State confirm that the propellant for the 800 tonnes of ammunition that the ships will carry is made by BAE Systems in my constituency, which proposes to move production to America? If buying British is best, will the Secretary of State ensure that the propellant continues to be made in the United Kingdom?

Geoff Hoon: The range of competitive pressures on UK companies clearly leads them to source material from different places. What is important to the UK economy is that they should do so cost-effectively while guaranteeing the supply of equipment—in this case, propellant. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence pays close regard to that.

Ian Davidson: As secretary of the all-party shipbuilding and ship repair group, may I say how much that group welcomes today's announcement? The carrier order is probably the biggest boost to British shipbuilding for many decades, and it is particularly welcome coming, as it does, against a background of siren voices of Conservative Members who said that it would never come to pass.
	Can the Secretary of State give us an idea how many carriers he thinks would be ordered by the navy of an independent Scotland? People on Clydeside will want to be clear about that when they realise that the jobs announced today have come while we are part of the Union. As we move towards Scottish elections—I make the point not for partisan reasons, but for the sake of public information—it is essential that people realise that.
	Given that the Secretary of State has announced a challenging organisational way of moving forward, can he guarantee that there will be no delay in the work, particularly in steel, because men on Clydeside are ready and waiting to start building the ships?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall of course not answer him in a partisan way. I must point out that in the role that he ably holds on behalf of the British shipbuilding industry, he last said that I had given British shipbuilding its biggest boost the last time I announced an order, which was the Type 45 order. I am grateful for his consistent observations, and I know that the Government are consistently grateful for his support.

Ian Davidson: Only when you deserve it.

Paul Keetch: Not always!

Geoff Hoon: We are always grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
	I have already dealt with the points that my hon. Friend made about Scottish nationalist policy. I recognise the SNP's difficulties in sustaining its argument when it comes to defence-related jobs. It is a great privilege to be Secretary of State for Defence for the United Kingdom, and I think that my hon. Friend made his point well enough.
	As for delays, I emphasise the need to ensure a mature design before any steel is cut. One reason for past cost overruns has been that steel has sometimes been cut before the design has been properly matured. That is why it is important to hold effective contract negotiations over the next 12 months in order to secure a proper outcome for employees in and around our great British shipyards and for the Ministry of Defence.

David Chidgey: Returning to the Secretary of State's comments on the partnership role of the MOD in regard to trained manpower, I am sure that he will be aware that Vosper Thornycroft has headquarters in Eastleigh. In the package that it put forward in the bidding process in partnership with BAE Systems, Vosper Thornycroft offered to provide high-skilled training for 1,000 people over the course of the project. That is vital to the future economy of my constituency and the wider area. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that that part of the BAE Systems proposal remains part of the project?

Geoff Hoon: It would not be right at this stage for me to give specific assurances of that kind. What I can say is that there will be enormous demand for high-skilled employees as a result of our decisions, and Vosper Thornycroft's investment and commitment to the skills of its work force has been enormously impressive as it has taken on a number of challenging contracts that ultimately come from the Ministry of Defence. I have every confidence in the company's ability to deliver on shipbuilding and on the training required for a skilled work force.

Kevan Jones: I warmly welcome today's announcement, which is good news for the north-east economy and particularly for Swan Hunter on the Tyne, a company that was closed by the Conservative Government but given a bright future by Labour. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the MOD and contractors work with organisations such as Northern Defence Industries to ensure that the maximum number of small and medium-sized enterprises can obtain work from the massive contract, which will be a great boost to the north-east in general.

Geoff Hoon: I have been in regular correspondence with Northern Defence Industries, which performs a valuable role on behalf of the defence industry and defence companies in the north-east. As one who represents an entirely land-locked constituency, I can say that one of the significant consequences of the announcement is that the benefits clearly available to the north-east and other shipbuilding areas flow right across the United Kingdom.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State did not point out that a commitment to build two strike carriers appeared in the 1997 Tory manifesto. I am glad that he has caught up with our plans and ambitions.
	Why is the Secretary of State withdrawing Sea Harriers before the two strike carriers come into commission? Will that not leave the Royal Navy vulnerable? Would it not be possible to bring forward the in-service dates, given that 2012 is a long way off? After all, it took the Germans just two years to build Bismarck and the Americans two and a half years to build USS Missouri. I appreciate that those were less sophisticated vessels, but is there any chance of bringing forward the in-service date?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman unfortunately overlooked the fact that the two huge new carriers will be equipped with the latest and most technologically advanced stealthy aircraft—the joint strike fighter. I would be more enthusiastic about his questions if, rather than just talking about investment, he had been more enthusiastic about the massive investment that the Government have made.

John Robertson: As the Member of Parliament who represents the Scotstoun yard, I hope that its name was missing from my right hon. Friend's statement only because Govan includes Scotstoun. I welcome the statement with open arms as it is good news for the Clyde and the country as a whole, but I am slightly disappointed that BAE Systems did not win the design part of the contract. In Scotstoun, a magnificent design office has been set up, especially for the Type 45 destroyers. It is an unmitigated success, but with the announcement of 265 job losses last week, I am concerned that there might be problems for that drawing office in years to come.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has been a constant champion of the Clyde and has argued long and successfully for precisely the kind of investment that we are now able to make in relation to the Clyde and BAE Systems' role there. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to ensure that his constituents are properly represented in guaranteeing that the kind of work available to them will continue long into the future.

John Thurso: Although I generally welcome the jobs that will be coming to Scotland, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the potential of the Nigg yard in Easter Ross? Given that the people of Easter Ross have borne with fortitude the inconvenience of the bombing range at Tain, would it not be a just reward for some of the jobs from the contract to come to Easter Ross, too?

Geoff Hoon: In my statement, I made it clear that the involvement of other yards was not ruled out. I have already pointed out, in response to a question from one of my hon. Friends, that I anticipated a significant amount of subcontract would benefit parts of the UK other than those that I have identified specifically so far. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make representations in due course.

Andy King: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am extremely concerned on behalf of the 3,000 workers at Alsthom in Rugby, 200 of whom are to be made redundant in March owing to the failure of international contract and who will be greatly relieved that there will be work for the manufacturing industry. As my right hon. Friend said, the contracts relate not only to shipyards but to manufacturing as a whole. How many jobs are there likely to be in the manufacturing industry, especially at Alsthom, which is a major part—supposedly—of the foreign business partnership?

Geoff Hoon: As I have already indicated, we anticipate that about 10,000 jobs will be either created or preserved as a result of the announcement. There will be significant opportunities for landlocked constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend and indeed mine to benefit from the subcontract work that will flow from these decisions. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case for his constituency.

Mark Francois: Does the Secretary of State agree that the welcome for his statement from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was a combination of four classic naval commands—full ahead, full astern, abandon ship, and make smoke—all at the same time?
	May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the implications of his announcement for procurement policy? The history of defence procurement under Governments of all colours is littered with examples of projects that went horribly wrong because it was never clear who was actually in charge. How can the Ministry of Defence credibly run future competitions if bidders see that despite all their efforts—and irrespective of the merits of the two bids in this case—Ministers can intervene at the last minute to create what is in effect a shotgun marriage between two different bids?

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, there might be a fifth naval command that applies to the Conservative party: take to the lifeboats.
	As far as—

Mark Francois: Answer the question.

Keith Simpson: It was supposed to be a joke—very funny.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for all the applause I can get.
	I dealt with the specific question put by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in my answer to the Opposition spokesman. By incorporating the best elements of both bids we obtain the best British manufacturing contribution to this excellent British project.

John Burnett: I foresee that the robust contractual arrangements that the Secretary of State described will provide a rich harvest for the legal profession in due course.
	The Secretary of State listed four shipyards where the main sections of the carriers will be built. Will he confirm that all UK shipyards, including Appledore in my constituency, will have a fair opportunity to tender for all subcontract work for the vessels?

Geoff Hoon: Having just answered a similar question from one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in relation to a different yard, I can assure him that the same opportunities will be available. I am sure that his former colleagues in the legal profession will welcome the contractual work that the decision offers.

Vincent Cable: Now that BAE Systems has won this major and lucrative contract, will the company be required to honour outstanding cost overruns on existing contracts, such as the submarines and Nimrod, thereby sending a clear signal to all partners in the aircraft carrier contract that contractual failure will be penalised and not automatically paid for by the taxpayer?

Geoff Hoon: It has never been suggested that, under existing contracts, the taxpayer will automatically have to fund any cost overrun. Indeed, that is central to the discussions that are being held between the Ministry of Defence and the company concerned. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this contract has been dealt with by both companies in an extremely professional and sophisticated way, and that the United Kingdom should be grateful that there are two companies operating in the country that are capable of producing such outstanding work.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[4th Allotted Day]

Iraq (Humanitarian Contingency Plan)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House observes the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq resulting from Saddam Hussein's misrule and Iraqi obstruction of humanitarian agencies; notes that more than ten per cent. of all Iraqi children die before their fifth birthday, and that a quarter of children under five are chronically malnourished; further notes the high dependency of Iraqis on Oil for Food programmes; deplores the continued Iraqi disruption of the Oil for Food programme; recognises the serious threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; understands that military action may follow Iraq's continued violation of its international obligation to disarm and destroy those weapons of mass destruction, contrary to UN Resolution 1441; urges the Secretary of State for International Development to work with the international community urgently to draw up a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for assisting the people of Iraq in the event of war; further urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is close co-operation between the military campaign and the aid effort; and calls on the Secretary of State for International Development to keep Parliament fully informed of the humanitarian situation in Iraq.
	May I begin by drawing the attention of the House to a point that has been made to me by several colleagues? It is extremely difficult at this time of day to attend both the Chamber and Standing Committees whose meetings start at 2.30 pm. Members may not be in the Chamber not because of lack of interest in the subject of our debate, but because they have to be at a Standing Committee meeting in a quarter of an hour's time.
	One of the most serious decisions a Prime Minister will ever have to make is whether to send our troops to war. The announcement last week that we are sending a quarter of our Army to the Gulf, while not making war inevitable, brings it a step closer. Furthermore, Hans Blix's statement to the Security Council this week provides clear evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, which, if it persists, will be met with military force.
	It is understandable that many people are cautious in their support for action against Iraq. Humanitarian aid organisations are warning of the catastrophic impact that war is likely to have on the Iraqi people. The Conservative party is responding to those warnings by initiating this debate: it is the responsible thing to do.
	So far, there has been a worrying silence from the Government on the humanitarian aspects of war against Iraq. It is worth pointing out that we have had no statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on the humanitarian preparations that her Department is making, despite having heard several statements from the Secretary of State for Defence on the military build-up that is taking place, and numerous statements from the Foreign Secretary on the diplomatic steps that he is taking.
	The written answers that hon. Members have received have been oblique and, I must say, generally uninformative. Hon. Members may contrast that silence on the humanitarian effort with the debates held in Parliament after 11 September. Then, Parliament was provided with regular updates on the situation in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State seemed happy to make statements and respond in debates about the actions that she was taking to deliver aid to the Afghan people.
	When Parliament was recalled, the Prime Minister said:
	"the humanitarian coalition to help the people of Afghanistan is as vital as the military action itself."—[Official Report, 4 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 673.]
	During his speech to the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister promised that
	"more than ever now, with every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition."
	During the Afghan campaign, the House debated not debate only the military but the humanitarian strategy. We debated the effectiveness of the international aid effort and how it might be made more effective. We were able to reassure our constituents that we were taking the humanitarian effort seriously and we were able to reassure ordinary Afghans that our conflict was not with them.
	I hope that today's debate will help to bring some balance to our understanding of the situation in Iraq.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right to mention Afghanistan. Looking a little further back in time, does she recall that during the Kosovo conflict there was substantial emphasis on the Government putting in place a clear humanitarian strategy?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is right. So far, our preparations for war in Iraq have been in marked contrast to the preparations for both those wars.
	If the wider war on terrorism is to succeed, it is crucial that we do not forfeit vital international support by pursuing a war against Saddam Hussein without a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for helping the innocent Iraqi people.
	Our main concern today is the sustainability of the aid programmes on which the Iraqis depend in the event of a war against Saddam Hussein's regime. When war could be just six weeks away, it is vital that the international community builds a comprehensive strategy for delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. We seek reassurance from the Secretary of State that there are comprehensive humanitarian contingency plans. Some of the statements that we have heard in recent weeks do not give us confidence that that is the case.
	Let us consider refugees. After the Gulf war, 1.8 million Iraqi refugees went on the move. That is 18 times the number of refugees who fled Afghanistan. On Tuesday, however, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees admitted to BBC News Online that its preparations were in the initial stages and,
	"in terms of scope they are not really on a large scale".
	Is that really acceptable when war might be a matter of weeks away?
	On 16 December, I asked the Secretary of State what discussions had taken place with Iran, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia—all the countries on Iraq's borders—about their policy of accepting refugees from Iraq. The answer came back, "None." I repeated that question on 27 January and got the same answer. Will the Secretary of State explain why little preparation appears to have been made for coping with an exodus of refugees? There are still 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran.

Julie Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an important debate on a subject that needs a public airing—a debate that I hope will encourage Ministers to take more action. She is not ungenerous by nature, but could she help the House by telling us why she thinks the Government have been so laggardly in promoting this other aspect of the fight against terrorism?

Caroline Spelman: I am afraid I cannot see into the minds of those on the Government Front Bench. My hon. Friend enables me to observe that although their hearts may well be in the right place in the sense that they want to help the Iraqi people, their seeming obduracy and unwillingness to debate humanitarian strategy could have an adverse morality—working against the very people whom we are all trying to spare unnecessary pain.

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No, I wish to continue on the subject of refugees.
	After 20 years of civil war in Afghanistan, there are still 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran, which already finds that a difficult burden to bear. Given that almost 1 million Iraqis crossed to Iran during the Gulf war, what support is Iran being provided to prepare for an exodus of refugees? Will Iran be in a position to cope when 900,000 refugees start to head for its border in two months' time? Surely now is the time to prepare for such a large-scale movement of people, not when they are on the move and it is already too late.

Glenda Jackson: Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain Conservative policy on Iraqi refugees. Would the Conservatives merely dub them potential terrorists and lock them up the minute they arrived in this country, which certainly seems to be their policy in general?

Caroline Spelman: This is not a debate for political point scoring; it is on a very serious subject. If the hon. Lady listens to the rest of my speech she will hear our policy. As she knows, we operate under the Geneva convention, by which we have a legal duty to provide a safe haven for genuine refugees. She knows that to be our position.
	As the Secretary of State made clear in her statements to the media—

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I wish to proceed on the subject of refugees.
	Iraq is already a desperately poor country and life under Saddam Hussein is appallingly bleak. The country's infrastructure remains damaged after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf war. According to the United Nations there are already about 1 million internally displaced people. More than 10 per cent. of all children die before their fifth birthday and a quarter of children are chronically malnourished. Children aged under 14 now comprise almost half of the Iraqi population. The sanitation system has all but collapsed and 60 per cent. of Iraqis—16 million people—depend on monthly food rations. Most Iraqis are now dependent on international aid programmes, a large part of which are funded under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food programme. Under Saddam Hussein, the effectiveness of that programme has already been severely disrupted. There is a real possibility, however, that that vital channel for the delivery of aid will be cut off altogether if there is a war. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell the House what alternative measures are being prepared to replace the programme if it is suspended for several months.

Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that the oil-for-food programme does enormously more than just provide food? The consequences of losing that programme will be devastating in terms not only of food but of medicines, transport, telecommunications, infrastructure and water supply. It will affect the lot.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is right. The programme extends to the infrastructure requirements of the country and I shall deal with that matter.
	Will the Secretary of State shed light on why more than $4 billion in oil revenues remain unspent in United Nations accounts when that has been allocated to humanitarian programmes in Iraq? Will the right hon. Lady investigate whether it would be possible to secure that money to fund vital humanitarian programmes in Iraq in the event of war? It seems absurd that Iraqis are living in appalling poverty and misery while $4 billion lies unspent in UN accounts. Those are the profits from the sale of Iraqi oil and they must now be used to help the Iraqi people.

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way now?

Caroline Spelman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to ask me about refugees.

Alex Salmond: I am. Is the hon. Lady aware that a nine-year-old Kurdish girl who fled persecution in Iraq a year ago has been successful in winning the prestigious Bridgeton Burns club award from Sighthill primary school in that area of Glasgow, which is an inspirational example of what can be achieved if asylum seekers' children are educated in local schools? The question is a serious one. What purpose would it serve for a similar child escaping persecution in Iraq or elsewhere to be locked up in a detention centre?

Caroline Spelman: I am sure that I may extend my congratulations to that Iraqi girl through the hon. Gentleman, who I sincerely hope will pass on that message from all of us. He is aware, I am sure, that there is probably not one Member of Parliament who has not had to deal in his or her surgery with the case of an Iraqi asylum seeker. They are the largest group of asylum seekers in this country. I reiterate that we firmly believe that we need to be in a position to offer a safe haven to genuine refugees.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) recently asked the Secretary of State how much her Department would provide towards the UN appeal for basic readiness funding in the light of a possible war in Iraq. Her answer was that she was
	"not making funding available at this stage."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 26W.]
	She may not be doing so at this stage, but surely officials from her Department are making some calculations as to how much it is going to cost. Can the right hon. Lady tell us today how much her Department expects to contribute to this crisis and what impact she expects the war in Iraq to have on other programmes that the Department funds in other parts of the world?
	I am sure that the right hon. Lady shares my concern that a war in Iraq will disrupt the valuable work of her Department in Africa, Asia and other parts of the middle east. I hope, therefore, that she will actively encourage her counterparts in other countries, in particular European Union countries, to pay their fair share.
	Resolution 1441 won unanimous support from the UN. I see nothing wrong in saying that those countries that choose not to make a military contribution to this important stage of the war against terrorism should be willing to make a more significant contribution to the aid effort. After the events of 11 September, we were promised a global alliance against terrorism. We need to keep working to make that coalition as wide and strong as ever. If our fellow European countries are unwilling or unable to send troops to Iraq, surely they should play their part by bearing a considerable portion of the burden of aiding the Iraqi people. France and Germany cannot be mere spectators on the war on terrorism.
	In November last year, I held a forum in Westminster, attended by 17 aid agencies that operate in Iraq or on its borders. The forum was addressed by Larry Hollingworth, a UN emergency co-ordinator with considerable experience of working in conflict situations. Together, we identified the key elements of a comprehensive humanitarian response to a war in Iraq. I sent the Secretary of State a list of our conclusions, and a few weeks later received a meagre four and a half line reply, thanking me for my thoughts. That was hardly the reassurance that I sought from the Secretary of State.
	One of the primary conclusions that we reached in the forum concerned the absolute necessity of good co-ordination within the UN and between the UN and the non-governmental organisations. We also recognised the overwhelming importance of good co-ordination between the military campaign and the aid effort. Strong civil-military liaison is vital to an effective aid effort. However, on Friday, the Financial Times reported that a humanitarian operations centre, which was supposed to have opened in Kuwait on 15 January, had been delayed and was not now due to open until February—the eve of a possible war.
	The Secretary of State was quite willing to attack poor levels of co-ordination during the Afghan campaign. In November 2001, she told the Select Committee on International Development, with her typical candour, that the US military was not taking the aid effort seriously. She said:
	"The civil-military liaison is not working particularly well. The communications are there, but they are not being taken seriously enough at a high level".
	When my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), asked the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday what discussions about humanitarian work in Iraq he was having with the Secretary of State for International Development, he refused to answer the question and said:
	"I do not want to go into the details of . . . planning of the kind he mentions, because that implies the inevitability of military action."—[Official Report, 27 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 558.]
	That is not a satisfactory response. Military action should be our last resort, but that should not stop us from planning ahead for all eventualities. Is the Secretary of State for International Development now able to say what practical measures have been introduced to bring about greater co-ordination of the military and humanitarian forces than was the case during the war in Afghanistan?
	Last October, Ali Hasmati, a UN information officer in Baghdad told the French Press Agency that the UN was making no preparation for how it would continue to deliver aid in the event of conflict. He said:
	"We don't have anything materialised so far because we have no indications that any of what you said"
	—about war—
	"is going to happen and we still hope that things will be solved diplomatically and politically".
	In a similar vein, in a written answer on 15 October last year, the Secretary of State told me that she was not actively discussing a humanitarian strategy for Iraq with the UN, the US or the European Union.
	It is surely not acceptable for the Department for International Development to adopt an ostrich stance, sticking its head in the sand and hoping that war will never happen. There are leaked UN reports of UN contingency planning, but at the end of last month still no funds had been made available for even the basic preparations to begin. The Foreign Secretary admitted this week that war is now likely—something confirmed by President Bush's "state of the union" address.
	The Gulf war caught the international community unprepared: we should learn from our mistakes. The Government need to be actively preparing a comprehensive military strategy to assist the people of Iraq in the event of conflict. We could be at war within two months, so there should be some well-advanced plans firmly in place by now. Food and vaccines should be stockpiled on the borders. Alternatives to the oil-for-food programme should have been found, and strong co-ordination between the military campaign and the humanitarian effort should have been firmly established. The Secretary of State should at least have an estimate of the commitment that her Department may make to a possible emergency and the impact that it will have on the rest of her Department's work.
	Above all, there is the moral imperative to help the Iraqi people. We are a rich nation and so is the US. We have chosen to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in our own national interest, but we should not eschew the responsibility of reaching out to the innocents who may be caught up in the consequences of our actions. My cherished hope is that war can be avoided, but my conscience will not be clear until I am satisfied that the Government have proper plans for humanitarian relief.

Clare Short: I am grateful to the Opposition for providing the opportunity to hold a debated focused on the humanitarian situation in Iraq and the risks to the Iraqi people of any possible military conflict. I hope that, with the permission of the House, I can also respond to the debate, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is attending her mother-in-law's funeral. I hope that my request will be acceptable to the House.
	I have to tell the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that this debate is enormously important and it is overdue, but the sort of petty point-scoring way in which she spoke is regrettable. [Hon. Members: "Oh, come on."] No, I am being very serious. I would have liked an opportunity to discuss these matters on the Floor of the House before. The usual channels did not provide that opportunity. I wonder whether she is aware of what the usual channels on her side are saying about her declining opportunities to say anything on the Floor of the House. She might want to look into those matters.

David Maclean: Nonsense.

Clare Short: You know what I mean.

David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not often that an Opposition Chief Whip rises on a point of order, but I do not understand the right hon. Lady's allusion. I should be grateful to her if she would explain exactly what she meant by referring to the usual channels and the allegation that she has made; or if she would care to put the matter in writing, I would love to consider it carefully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it, he would not expect the occupant of the Chair to have any clearer view of the matter, and it should be pursued outside the scope of this debate.
	May I remind the right hon. Lady that she has used the second person, and I certainly have had nothing to do with those matters?

Clare Short: I will be more than happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman of some of the proposals that have emanated from somewhere or other about reducing the time that might be spent—

Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I will not; I need to proceed, if I may.
	It was proposed in the normal way that we should seek to amend the Opposition motion, but, having looked at the motion, there was no case for amending it. I decided that those matters are too important for petty party-political point scoring and that we should proceed without tabling an amendment.
	The Liberal Democrat amendment has not been selected, but, equally, I completely accept its spirit—that we should consider in any military preparations that are made the need to look after the interests of the people of Iraq and minimise any harm to them—if not the more political point about landmines and cluster bombs. I do not say that I am in favour of those things, but perhaps that point was put in a slightly different spirit. My view and the Government's view is that Saddam Hussein is a terrible tyrant dedicated to developing and possessing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I know that many members of the public doubt that, and say that the weapons inspectors must provide evidence. Any scrutiny of the record from the Gulf war onwards in relation to requests by the Security Council for Iraq to disarm, with the prospect of the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, must lead to the conclusion that the regime is dedicated to owning those weapons. Otherwise, sanctions would have been removed a long time ago, there would be much less suffering for the people of Iraq, and that country's natural wealth and oil would have been used to restore the prosperity of Iraq, which is naturally wealthy and oil-rich.

Alex Salmond: I accept much of what the Secretary of State has just said. Is it not important that, for example, the nuclear inspections that have taken place—I know that she has read the relevant documents—have provided some clarification? Have not some of the fears expressed only a few weeks ago by the White House about the imminence of Iraq's nuclear programme been confounded by the inspectors' examination thus far?

Clare Short: I shall refer in a few minutes to Dr. Blix's report to the Security Council. His report is a worry, however, and he has said that he has had co-operation on process not substance. He reported to the Security Council some worrying lack of co-operation and worrying evidence. On the other hand, the previous inspection regime dismantled many armaments, including nuclear armaments. If we could only return to that position, we might have an outcome from this crisis without a war that would cause great suffering to the people of Iraq. I am not sure whether I have fully answered the hon. Gentleman's point.

Alex Salmond: On the specifics, the right hon. Lady will remember that only a few weeks ago we were told that piping that had been identified in Iraq was certainly part of a process of building up a nuclear capability. It is clear from the nuclear aspect of the inspectors' report thus far, however, that that is unlikely to be the case. That indicates why it is important that people are given the time and space to examine things properly and that we do not rush into conflict.

Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that the inspectors must be given the proper time. I recommend that everyone read Dr. Blix's statement to the Security Council, which is short and very factual, in which he says that there are very serious problems on his side of the search for chemical and biological weapons. None of us can therefore be sanguine about the intentions of the regime to co-operate with the inspectors, although we should all wish to bring about that objective. I am clear, and all sane people should be clear, that there should be no rush to war. We must be invincibly committed to backing up the authority of the United Nations this time, not backing off. Saddam Hussein's regime must know that the world will remain united behind the authority of the United Nations, that he will be forced by one means or another to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and that, if necessary, the world will be willing to use military force to back up the authority of the United Nations. That is the right place for the world to be, and that is where public opinion is in this country.

Llew Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that approximately half of the Iraqi population is under 14 years of age. Does she accept that if we go to war, the damage and devastation that will be inflicted on those children will be far greater than any damage that may be inflicted on the grass at Hyde park if those who wish to protest against the war and avert a humanitarian disaster are allowed to do so on 15 February? Is it not a warped sense of priorities that is leading to a ban on that demonstration on 15 February?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything that we can to make sure that children and people in Iraq do not suffer from any possible military action if such action is necessary to enforce the authority of the UN. We must be willing to contemplate military action to enforce the authority of the UN.
	On the question of the demonstration, I know nothing apart from what I have read in the press about access to Hyde park. I welcome the fact that so many people in Britain are troubled by the prospects of war. I am glad that I live in a country that is troubled by the prospects of war and does not relish the prospects of war, and that people are willing to make their views felt. I hope that some accommodation can be found in relation to the problems of Hyde park. I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurances, however, as I know only what has been in the press.

Llew Smith: If I am right, and there is a ban on that demonstration in Hyde park on 15 February, does that display a warped sense of priorities?

Clare Short: As I said, I have read what is in the press, and I have heard someone responsible for the royal parks say that there is a danger of having a demonstration in that park. I certainly believe that the demonstration must be allowed to go ahead and that people must be allowed to rally and make speeches. That is important in a democracy. I cannot with any expertise tell my hon. Friend about the ruling on the park. I hope that he will not press me on that, as I have no knowledge with which to inform him. As is clear, both sides of the House feel strongly that people in our country must have a right to express their views on these matters. My view—which, again, is the view of the Government—is that if we can keep the world united around the invincible authority of the United Nations, and if we can move forward on progress towards the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside a secure and safe Israel, the world will be in a much better shape to deal with this crisis. The threat of bitter division that is ripping across the world and is a great danger would thereby be minimised. The ideal way to proceed is to back up the authority of the UN and make progress on Israel and Palestine. I note that President Bush in his state of the union address said:
	"We will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine".
	I do not know about "continue", but I hope that we can take those ideas forward. Now that the elections have taken place in Israel, I hope that the quartet can publish their own map and move forward rapidly to making plans for final status for a Palestinian state. If we can do that, we can handle this crisis in a much safer world with much greater unity across the world.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Lady will be aware that we have rightly provided refuge in this country during the difficult times in Iraq in recent years for many younger people in particular who have left that country. Naturally, if Iraq moves into a better future, they will be an extremely important part of putting the country back together again and giving it a prosperous and successful future. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) alluded to one example of that. Will she provide support within the humanitarian process for those people who are currently taking refuge in this country to return to a post-Saddam Iraq and play an active role in rebuilding that country?

Clare Short: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. I, like many other Members, have large numbers of Iraqi refugees—largely Kurdish but not exclusively so—in Ladywood who come to see me at my advice bureau. Most of them are highly educated and would be a great asset to a rebuilt Iraq. Our arrangements for asylum seekers need to be flexible to take in people who are facing persecution, and to assist those people to return to their countries, if their countries are liberated, to help rebuild them, as we have been doing in relation to Afghanistan. It is not a lead issue for my Department, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we have tried to do that with regard to Kosovo and Afghanistan. Let us hope that, before long, we will have a free and democratic Afghanistan and that some of those refugees seeking asylum in our country will be able to return home to a free country.
	As I was saying, the fallout from the sense of double standards about the world's urgency in dealing with the problem with Iraq, and lack of urgency in dealing with the problem of Israel and Palestine, is a great danger to the future of the world. It is causing enormous tension, hostility and anger throughout this country, but, even more so, throughout the Muslim and Arab world. I believe that the view of the old and the new Europe is that we should do all in our power to move forward on that issue, and that the world would be in much better shape if we were able to do so.
	While I welcome the concern among the people of our country that there should not be a war that inflicts great suffering on the already long-suffering people of Iraq, it is our duty to send the firm message to Saddam Hussein that this time the UN is in business, is invincible and will not go away, and that there must be disarmament. I agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the threat of military force needs to be exercised to avoid, if possible, the use of military force.

Andrew Robathan: I know how deeply the Secretary of State cares about such issues. Suffering will occur if there is war, and there will be mayhem and death. Of course no one would welcome a war, but does she accept that death is already being inflicted on young people in Iraq—those under 14 who make up half the population—and older people by the tyrant Saddam Hussein? In the past 12 years since the end of the Gulf war probably hundreds of thousands of people have been killed by the Government in Iraq.

Clare Short: I agree that Saddam Hussein is a terrible tyrant. There is evidence of gross torture and I have heard deeply chilling stories from asylum seekers in my constituency. The humanitarian situation across the country is terrible, and we should think of the humanitarian consequences of any possible military action, which is the value of the debate. We should also consider taking military action if it is necessary to minimise suffering and to maximise the speed with which Iraq is reconstituted so that it gets up and going and its economy is improved.

Alan Duncan: There is little disagreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House about the current situation, but as the right hon. Lady just said, the key consideration is the preparation of contingency plans for any humanitarian problems that might emerge. May I take it that in the remaining moments of her comments she will inform the House exactly what her Department is doing, because at the moment we have almost nothing to go on? The purpose of the debate is to seek details from her. We would love those to be forthcoming in the minutes left.

Clare Short: I regret taking that intervention because it was silly. I am setting the scene for the difficulties we face. Of course I will come on to the humanitarian considerations. The hon. Gentleman is simply involved in the same cheap point scoring as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It is necessary to prepare to minimise harm if military action is taken and to make arrangements for the reconstruction of the country as rapidly as possible. To achieve that, we need to ensure that the UN takes the lead in the reconstruction, as it did in Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan. That needs to be agreed across the international community.
	Neighbouring countries do not want to talk to other countries about what they might do for humanitarian purposes in the event of war. The public opinion in their countries is raging about the prospect of war. That is one of the dangers. The UN is making preparations, but it was cautious of doing so early on. It was also careful about whom it talked to because it did not want to say to the world, "The UN is preparing for war."

Caroline Spelman: rose—

Clare Short: The hon. Lady can stay seated for a moment while I finish. She started by trying to score cheap points. [Interruption.] She did. That is my opinion and I will make my view clear. All parties have recently been more willing to prepare for all contingencies, including the military in the United States of America, but it has not been easy to get discussions and analysis going across the international system to prepare for all those. Anyone who pauses to reflect intelligently on the strains and tensions across the international system because of the crisis would realise why that has been difficult. Greater movement to that effect has taken place recently. The hon. Lady got the true answers to her questions, but my Department has been working for a considerable time on all contingencies. That work is developing and we are getting more co-operation from some of our international partners which was difficult to get before.

Caroline Spelman: I specifically asked about discussions with neighbouring countries. I am sure the right hon. Lady is aware that the leaked UN report has an assessment of how many refugees might go in which directions and which countries are willing to open their borders. I asked about that because refugees might have to move through lines of British troops. The Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development need to co-ordinate on that. I hope to get a more ample answer in the light of that UN report.

Clare Short: If the hon. Lady followed the details of other crises, she would know that that is the responsibility of the United Nations. It takes the lead on that. I note that she had a meeting with Larry Hollingsworth. He performed badly in that role in the Kosovo crisis and we had great difficulties with UNHCR's performance, as the Select Committee on International Development made clear at the time. But the UN will take the lead, for which it is preparing. It is also trying to predict possible risks, in so far as anyone can do that, and sharing that information with partners in the UN system.
	As has been said, the humanitarian situation is already a tragedy. The population of Iraq is largely dependent on food handouts. Its agricultural sector is operating way below capacity. Almost a third of all children in the centre and south suffer from chronic malnutrition. The prevalence of low birth weight babies has increased more than five times in the past 10 years. Iraq's under-five mortality rate is 131 per thousand live births, which is worse than the Democratic Republic of Congo or Mozambique. Death from diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections, both easily preventable, account for 70 per cent. of child mortality. More than half of Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water. The average Iraqi child under five suffers from 14 bouts of diarrhoea a year.

Simon Thomas: The right hon. Lady knows that child malnutrition in Iraq has improved slightly over the past year or so. That is probably down to the success of the oil-for-food programme and the UN food programmes in Iraq. I hope she will tell us a little more about how the oil-for-food programme will continue, especially post-conflict, and assure hon. Members and the people of Iraq that there will be no exploitation of Iraq's oil resources for the benefit of multinational corporations. Those resources should purely be for the benefit of the people of Iraq.

Clare Short: I will deal with the oil-for-food programme. It is important. I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the oil resources of Iraq belong to the people of Iraq and should be used for their benefit and to reconstruct the country if there is military action. First, however, let me put some of the realities of the humanitarian situation on the record.
	The country's infrastructure is in chronic disrepair. Hospitals, clinics, sanitation facilities and water treatment plants suffer from a terrible lack of maintenance. The result is that the Iraqi people's lives are perilously fragile. Their coping strategies have been worn away by years of misrule. The public facilities to help them cope are run down, often to the point of uselessness.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend draw a distinction between northern Iraq, which is under Kurdish rule, and the rest of the country, which is under Saddam's rule, and highlight the differences between the two? Both parts of Iraq are subject to sanctions. The people in northern Iraq are subject to Saddam's sanctions in addition to UN sanctions, but the circumstances of the people there are very different to those in Saddam's Iraq.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Under the same oil-for-food programme, children in the north are healthy and doing well, but children in the rest of the country are doing badly. Some of the money is unspent because the regime is not using the oil-for-food programme to the benefit of its people. It is not possible for the UN or the Government to make Saddam Hussein use the resources to benefit his people. If he did, they would not be in the same situation.
	There was a slow start because the international system was unwilling to be seen to be preparing for war. I am sure that, on reflection, all hon. Members will accept that. But there has recently been a move towards considering all possible contingencies and scenarios. Work is proceeding and the UN is engaging in it. We are in touch with it on all possible humanitarian scenarios.

Andrew Selous: I should like to take the right hon. Lady back to her remarks about the preparations in the United Nations. I am sure that we are all extremely pleased to hear that they are going on. But, given that she has made valid criticisms of the UN's performance during Kosovo, will she tell us her assessment of those preparations and whether Britain is remonstrating seriously with the UN if in her opinion there are deficiencies, so that they can be made up before it is too late?

Clare Short: I have had talks with the various UN humanitarian organisations and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which leads co-ordination of the UN effort. I think that the preparations are as good as they can be. There are so many risks and uncertainties that it is very difficult to prepare. I shall come on to some of those risks and uncertainties. With regard to the UN appeal for, I think, $37 million to make preparations, the United States has said that it will pay that money and that the pay-over is in hand. I had discussions with Andrew Natsios, head of the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, in Addis Ababa a week or so ago, when he gave that undertaking.
	Since some of the deficiencies of the UNHCR operation in Kosovo—which we should contrast with the World Food Programme, which did extremely well in Kosovo—the UN's operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and East Timor have been impressive in very difficult situations. The system is improving. We have been working very hard to get it to improve and to be more effectively co-ordinated. Obviously, all such efforts need to continue if there is a military conflict and the UN is put into a leading position in coping with it.
	I hope that the whole House will agree that the best scenario is that war should be avoided if possible. It is very clear from Dr. Blix's report that
	"Iraq does not appear to have come to genuine acceptance of disarmament and is co-operating on process and not substance."
	As I told the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the previous inspectors achieved a great deal of disarmament, and we should not forget that. With the pressure and willingness to take action behind the UN, if we could persuade Iraq to be willing to allow the inspectors to disarm, we could achieve a better outcome for the people of Iraq. We must continue to work on that. If that could be done, sanctions could be lifted and the country could be restored very quickly. In such a situation, it is very likely that the people of Iraq would change their leader, and my hon. Friend and those with whom she has been working would have the satisfaction of making sure that Saddam Hussein was brought to book in the courts for the terrible suffering and breach of international law that he has imposed on the people of his country and the region. Obviously, that is the most desirable scenario. Keeping up the pressure for possible military conflict behind the UN is one way of trying to achieve that scenario, if it is at all possible.
	I should like to set out the humanitarian risks. There is a very serious risk, if there was military action and there was not good organisation, that large-scale ethnic fighting could break out in the country. There has been deep repression. With the different ethnic groups, that fighting could result in a humanitarian nightmare. Any preparations for military action have to take account of that. There needs to be order and stability in the country to avoid what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster. That is risk number one.
	There is a second risk that the non-governmental organisations have drawn attention to. It is that any bombing to take out electronic capacity and thus disarm anti-aircraft capacity could present a danger to electrics and damage water and sanitation facilities as a consequence. There would be the resultant danger that people would not have access to water and that sanitation facilities would be even worse than they are now. Clearly, preparations need to be made against that eventuality so that the health of the people of Iraq does not suffer.
	The third risk is what happened after the Gulf war: the booby-trapping of oil installations, with resultant environmental damage. It would also damage and slow down the reconstruction of Iraq and the capacity of its people to use their oil for the benefit of their own country. Every effort must be made to try to ensure that that does not happen.
	The next risk, mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), is that oil for food would be disrupted. Of course, disorder would disrupt it. It is a massive system, and most of the people of Iraq depend on it, not simply for adequate supplies, but, in the case of Baghdad-controlled Iraq, for the very basics of human survival. Accordingly, any action needs to be very organised and calm, ensuring that the capacity of the system is maintained or that a replacement system is put into place very quickly. Otherwise, many people across the country would not have the very basic necessities of life.
	The final risk, and the most difficult for the international humanitarian system to prepare for, is that chemical and biological weapons might be used in fighting, including fighting around Baghdad or other urban areas. Everybody will know that that horrendous possibility is being prepared for with the ordering of special suits to protect troops that might be engaged, and that there are preparations in terms of immunisation against the obvious risks posed by the use of chemical and biological weapons. But what about the people of Iraq? No one can provide them with suits or immunisation. That is the most horrifying humanitarian possibility. The UN system is preparing for it and plans that its staff should be withdrawn, because there is no way of protecting them. Obviously, everything should be done to prevent it, if it is humanly possible, but should it happen the military would have to look after the people of Baghdad or wherever in Iraq it occurred. Those preparations are beginning to be thought through.
	That shows the complexity of the possible humanitarian disasters that could occur if there is military action.

Jenny Tonge: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about the people of Iraq. I wonder whether she has ever read any medical descriptions of malnourished children dying as a result of attack by chemical weapons. They are absolutely horrendous. She should implore the people who are contemplating action on Iraq to do everything possible not just to protect our own soldiers and UN personnel, but to find some way of protecting the children of Iraq.

Clare Short: I defer to the hon. Lady's expertise as a doctor. I have read quite detailed accounts of the suffering of people and children at Halabja and some of the consequences of the use of chemicals there. I could read more and I am sure that I would be even more horrified. But one can feel the mood of the House. Everyone wants to avoid that eventuality if we can.

Glenda Jackson: Surely the situation that my right hon. Friend has just painted with regard to the possible use of chemical and biological weapons, if they are there, is even worse, because during the Kuwait conflict the American Government made it clear to Saddam Hussein that if such weapons were used in the field the Americans would use nuclear weapons. Surely, the best possible protection that can be afforded to the children of Iraq is for everyone inside this House and outside it to argue very fiercely for the inspectors to be given more time and for the possibility and indeed the reality of war to be pushed further and further away.

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do everything we can to avoid this risk. But I do not agree with those who say that we can do nothing. I think that the case for the inspectors to have more time—Dr. Blix has asked for this—is overwhelming. But last time Saddam Hussein made it impossible for the inspectors to do their job and to disarm the weapons that were there. We cannot allow that to happen again. He has impoverished his country, terrorised his people, destroyed a wealthy economy, all because he is so dedicated to having these weapons. We cannot ignore it, because one day they will be used against somebody. We must find the best possible way of working through the United Nations and minimising the risk of military action, or if it has to take place to back up the authority of the UN, to minimise the risk of harm to the people of Iraq. That is the case that I am trying to put, the case around which I think the people of this country are united. That is the way in which the people of this country should try to use their influence to get the world through this crisis.

Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: With respect, I have given way a lot. I must get on and leave time for other hon. Members to make speeches.
	I hope that I have reassured the House that contingency planning is under way. We are trying to take full account of the risks, but I am sure that the House is aware that humanitarians cannot make preparations alone—there must be collaboration between military planners and humanitarians if we are to prepare for all eventualities and risks. We are working on that, but we can never say such work is perfect—it needs to be developed more strongly. On top of all of that, the international humanitarian system is under considerable strain, as there are enormously complicated problems with drought and food shortages in southern Africa, the horn of Africa and Angola. Every day, five million people in Afghanistan need food aid, and the humanitarian situation on the west bank and Gaza is very serious and getting worse. My Department's resources and those of the international humanitarian system are therefore strained. We will, of course, play our part in any international humanitarian effort, but no one should be complacent about the international system's resources or, indeed, those of my Department.

Crispin Blunt: On the narrow point of resources, so that the House can gain an understanding of the resources that may be required to deal with the humanitarian situation in Iraq, will the right hon. Lady tell the House about the resources being devoted to preparation? What resources will the Department be able to provide for relief if we go to war and end up in the situation that she described?

Clare Short: In terms of gross national income, the UK's contribution to any humanitarian crisis throughout the world, as determined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, is just over 5 per cent.—that is all. As hon. Members know, my Department's budget has virtually doubled since 1997, but is under strain, as I have just said. We have a contingency reserve and Iraq would be prioritised. However, I have just been in Africa, where there is a real fear about resources being taken away from southern Africa, the horn of Africa, the Afghan people, the west bank and Gaza—that would be wrong and we would not contemplate it. We will play our part in the international system, but the Department is not flush with resources—I must frankly warn the House that they are short.

Gregory Barker: rose—

Clare Short: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for persistence, if nothing else.

Gregory Barker: A little earlier, the right hon. Lady referred to the possible use by Saddam Hussein of chemical or biological weapons. Given what has been discussed in Washington and what was said during the last Gulf war, is there any scenario in which the British Government would either use nuclear weapons against Iraq or countenance supporting their use?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not a military planner, but I cannot envisage any scenario whatsoever, given the scenarios that I have just put to the House, in which contemplating the use of nuclear weapons would be of any use whatsoever. I speak as someone who is not a military expert but as someone who has thought through the humanitarian contingencies of the present crisis and the prospect of military action.
	I am sure that the House agrees—the country feels this very strongly—that the world in an extremely fragile state. I believe that there is a way through the crisis—it is to back the invincible authority of the UN and make progress in the middle east peace process. That is the position that the people of the UK and most people in the world support, and it is the position of the UK Government. As the House knows, the Prime Minister is about to go and have talks with the President of the United States of America, and I am sure that we all wish him Godspeed so that the points made in today's debate can be fully taken into account by the US Government and the world can get through the crisis in the best possible shape, with the people of Iraq being liberated and going on to build up and reconstruct their country, as they are entitled to do.

Jenny Tonge: I welcome this Opposition day debate. If the Liberal Democrats had been offered such an opportunity—if, indeed, we are ever offered an Opposition day debate again—we would certainly have had a debate on this issue, but I suspect that it would have had sharper teeth, which may be why we are not getting any Opposition day debates at the moment. I shall leave the Secretary of State to draw her own conclusions.
	The Conservatives have been enthusiastic in their support for the USA's policy on Iraq, exceeding even the enthusiasm of the Prime Minister. I am therefore nauseated by the rows of grey suits on the Tory Benches, all looking concerned and shedding crocodile tears—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very serious matter, and the House should approach it in that way.

Jenny Tonge: I am glad that they are upset, Mr. Deputy Speaker—perhaps the words hit home. I am sorry to laugh, but those Members are quite funny too.
	The debate introduced by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is doubly welcome. None of my remarks would ever apply to her, because she has been extremely concerned about the issue for a long time. She has discussed it with both the Secretary of State and me, and I am sorry that she has not been able to bring it to the House—or that her colleagues have not let her do so—before. My concern about the humanitarian situation in Iraq increased two years ago when a party of bishops returned from a fact-finding tour of the country. One of them was the Rev. Peter Price, then Bishop of Kingston who, sadly for my constituents, has now gone to Wells.
	The bishops reported on the terrible conditions experienced by many Iraqi people, particularly the children. The Iraqis depend on a modern but decayed infrastructure and for years they have been short of food and medicine. The hon. Member for Meriden gave us a lot of statistics, and I have some, too. One in 10 children die before the age of five; a quarter of Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition; many will be dead in one to five days if they are not fed in the event of war; 15 million people are already dependent on food aid, and another 5.4 million will need feeding if the oil-for-food programme stops suddenly. All those figures are from the UN needs assessment, which also states that, in the event of war, 2 million people will need therapeutic feeding, which is even more expensive and difficult.
	The usual Government response is that the oil-for-food programme allowed for sufficient food and medicine for the Iraqi people, but Saddam Hussein was not using the revenues for the right purpose. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, there is evidence that in north Iraq, where the UN administers the oil-for-food programme, conditions are better and people are in better health. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein has starved his people and could blame the west for their suffering because of the oil-for-food programme. Economic sanctions are the culprit to some extent, and he has used us as a propaganda tool. That is why, two years ago, at our annual conference, the Liberal Democrats called for the lifting of economic sanctions on Iraq. At the very least, that would have stopped Saddam Hussein blaming the USA and this country for his people's suffering. Military sanctions, arms embargoes and freezing bank accounts, where possible, would have been a far better way of damaging Iraq's leaders.

Andrew Robathan: I served with the hon. Lady for many years on the Select Committee on International Development. Does she accept that while the people of Iraq may hear Saddam Hussein blaming sanctions, they know that Mesopotamia and the Euphrates valley have always been an enormously wealthy area? They know that there is oil in the ground. They are not as stupid as some people may think, and know where to put the blame for their suffering—on the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Jenny Tonge: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that does not negate my point that economic sanctions have stopped the people of Iraq getting the food that they need, and we have taken the blame for it. [Interruption.]

Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Tonge: No, I will not give way again. The situation remains as I have described, and I pay tribute to the Iraqi people in my constituency who have lobbied me over the past five years not to forget the children of Iraq, who are dying because they have no food and no medicine.

Alan Duncan: On that point—

Jenny Tonge: May I make some progress?
	The Secretary of State told us that thought has been given to the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using on his own people again whatever chemical and biological weapons he may have left, even if he cannot attack surrounding countries. That is a dread of mine. The Afghanistan bombing killed 5,000 civilians directly, and many others—20,000 or more—died from the indirect effects of that action. The World Health Organisation estimates 500,000 casualties from bombing Iraq, and the use of chemical and biological weapons on a malnourished and sick population would kill hundreds of thousands more. We are looking at a vision of hell in that country when war breaks out. Are we prepared for that?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) say from the Front Bench that there are $4 billion in oil revenue reserves unspent in UN accounts, and that those funds were earmarked for aid but have not been spent. Will the hon. Lady speculate about why that money has not been spent on aiding Iraq?

Jenny Tonge: It is my understanding that there are two reasons. One is that the contracts are so incredibly bureaucratic that the money has been left—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had enough interventions from a sedentary position from various parts of the house. Perhaps we can get on with the debate in a sensible way.

Jenny Tonge: The first reason is that the process is very slow moving. The contracts that need to be set up so that the money can be used to buy products, food and so on are extremely slow, so the money stays where it is. Secondly, Saddam Hussein does not want to feed his people, and we get the blame for it.
	Iraqis are also dying because they have no clean water: 70 per cent. of infant deaths are caused by diarrhoea and respiratory infection linked to water pollution. The River Tigris receives 500,000 tonnes of raw sewage every day. Hon. Members should remember that when they are next on the Terrace with their visitors, admiring the view of the Thames.

Kerry Pollard: Does the hon. Lady understand that raw sewage is going into that river because the Iraqis do not have sewage treatment plants? They do not have them because the United Nations will not allow the pumps to be bought because they can be put to dual use. That has nothing to do with the Iraqi regime. The UN will not allow the pumps through, and that is because of the Americans. I have visited Iraq twice and I know—I have seen it.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman has made my point well for me. One of the saddest things about economic sanctions on Iraq has been the decay of the infrastructure, which has led to the terrible plight of the people there, with no clean water or proper sewage systems because they cannot be repaired.
	During the war on Iraq, water treatment equipment will be needed for 5.4 million people directly, to give them some clean water. Have we planned for that? Electrical supply is needed to power water and sewage plants, and that, too, has been affected by economic sanctions. A third of the power supply is still down after the 1991 war, and those essential plants have never been repaired. Does the Secretary of State have assurances that her Government and that of the USA will not do further damage to what is left of Iraq's infrastructure, as was the case in Serbia and Afghanistan? For heaven's sake, let the people of Iraq have the water and power that they have left.
	Has the Secretary of State assessed the likely flow of refugees? The hon. Member for Meriden spoke about that at length. Already, there are 700,000 displaced people within Iraq. That number will increase. Thousands will flee across heavily mined areas, adding to civilian injury and casualties. Iran has estimated that 900,000 will go there, and it already has 3 million refugees, many still there from the Afghanistan wars. Iran has no capacity to take any more. Will that country receive help when it requests that, or will it suffer from being one of George Bush's "axis of evil" countries and be totally ignored? If so, innocent people, including many Iraqis, will suffer.
	Is UNHCR prepared? Will the United States and its allies use land mines and cluster bombs? We need to know that as a matter of urgency. Must we add to the destruction and horror that will go on in Iraq by adding even more explosives, which will affect the civilian population, not the military? Have plans been made for safe havens within Iraq? That needs to be done early on in hostilities so that people know there are safe havens, particularly around Basra, so that people from the south can get to them. That is essential if there is to be a war.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady mentioned cluster bombs and land mines. We bear in mind what the Secretary of State said on the matter, but we must remember that depleted uranium was used in the previous Gulf war. The response of the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions yesterday to the leader of the hon. Lady's party, when he suggested strongly that there would be US control over British forces in Iraq suggests to me that we may see weapons being used of which the British Government do not approve. That should concern all of us in the House.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman makes one of the most serious points made this afternoon. Do we really want to go to war with our forces under the control of a Government who, over the past few years, have withdrawn from almost every international treaty one can think of? Will we subject our troops to such activity?
	Past experiences are not good. In Afghanistan, it took a great deal of publicity from NGOs and others—the House will remember that I called for Afghanistan to be bombed with food, to much ridicule from the boys on the Benches, but never mind—to highlight the humanitarian situation there. Food aid eventually got through, but not without immense difficulty. The west promised not to forget Afghanistan.

Clare Short: I have said before that I admire what the World Food Programme achieved in Afghanistan throughout the crisis, from the pulling out of all UN international staff before any military action got going. Right through the military action and ever since, the UN has been feeding people there. The figure went up to 9 million and it is still 5 million people daily. The World Food Programme managed to keep that going. For the record, that was a fantastic achievement and very important.

Jenny Tonge: The right hon. Lady leads me to my next point. We all remember the Prime Minister pledging not to forget Afghanistan once the bombing was over. Of the money that has been pledged and delivered for the reconstruction of that country, 70 per cent. is still being spent on humanitarian aid. That will happen in Iraq in the event of a war, so reconstruction will be very slow.

Ann Clwyd: The Prime Minister has argued all along for an expansion of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan to avoid having to spend so much on humanitarian aid and to allow more to be spent on reconstruction. While there is insecurity in that country, that will be the case.

Jenny Tonge: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, but I suspect that we are drifting away from the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It is useful to reflect on what happened in Afghanistan. I was about to report similar failures in the Balkans. The aid pledged for that region is dwindling year after year. The middle east is a running sore and getting worse. In Kashmir, where I have just been for a few days, there is terrible suffering among people caught up in an impasse between nuclear powers. I have not even mentioned Africa, to which the hon. Member for Meriden referred. The world is forced to look at Iraq because America says so, but there are far greater problems.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Tonge: No, I will not give way again. I have nearly finished my remarks and I want others to have a chance to speak.
	If war is waged on Iraq, a humanitarian catastrophe could spread all over the middle east and not be confined to Iraq's borders. How much money will be needed to deliver aid and reconstruction to Iraq during and after the war? What proportion of that—the Secretary of State touched on this—will once again have to come out of the DFID budget? I say this every time these things happen. That budget is bled for reconstruction and aid once a war is over. Why does the Ministry of Defence not pay for cleaning up its own messes? DFID's money is supposed to be used to meet the millennium targets on health, education and clean water for the poorest people of the world, and not—I repeat, not—to clean up the mess of yet another war.
	The Prime Minister was fond of telling us during the run-up to the bombing of Afghanistan that, following much pressure, he had a two-pronged approach: military and humanitarian. I believe that it was a three-pronged approach at times, with diplomatic efforts being made too. He has been only too ready this time, backed by the official Opposition, to use the military option, paying scant attention so far to other issues. The Opposition motion recognises the humanitarian crisis, and we will of course support it.
	Destruction is so easy. The USA and its allies can perhaps annihilate Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but at what cost? We will risk alienating Muslims for ever. We will certainly increase the risk of terrorist attacks here at home. We must not make war on the Iraqi people—only on their Government. Massive humanitarian aid, backed by patient diplomacy to encourage co-operation with the weapons inspectors, must go hand in hand with the threat of military action.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, and that starts now.

Harry Barnes: It is massively important that we are discussing this subject. I am pleased that the debate has proceeded as if it is on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. There is a substantive motion, but since the Government have not tabled an amendment to it and the Liberal Democrat amendment was not selected by the Speaker, the debate is about the issue only. Although I am one of those who always calls for substantive motions on which to vote in connection with Iraq so that we can hold the Government to account, the approach taken today is right when considering humanitarian concerns. I am against any war in these circumstances and have humanitarian concerns, but I recognise that there are those who would venture down the path of war but who nevertheless need to be concerned about humanitarian matters too.
	The spokespersons for each major party have put on record very important information about the condition of the people and children of Iraq. Therefore, I do not need to go into the material that I have picked up from Save the Children, for instance, and other organisations such as Desert Rescue. Such information has been presented much more authoritatively. Some of the most important, open and honest statements on the current condition of the people of Iraq have been made by the Secretary of State. Many of us will be able to use such weighty and important comments; they are invaluable.
	I think that the best contingency would be for us not to attack Iraq, so that the dangers that I am talking about do not emerge. Those who claim to use the humanitarian argument by saying, "We should still go in because Saddam Hussein is slaughtering his people and is responsible for the conditions" can be in a difficult position. Effectively, many of them are saying, "We do not really want to go in; we were hoping that revealing and getting rid of the weapons would make us free from danger". So their argument about the condition of people in Iraq and the danger that they face drops away. The horrors that have been described in relation to the people of Iraq should not be added to by the extra consequences that are due to follow, which are our responsibility and not that of Saddam Hussein.
	I do not have to speak in detail about the horrors that have been suffered in Iraq as others have spelt them out, but it might be fruitful to consider how the current conditions emerged. Unfortunately, Britain is the last country in the world that should be involved in an attack on Iraq, because we are the old imperial power there. We created and shaped Iraq in 1920, and until 1932 we had a mandate over it that we exploited considerably for our own benefit, especially through the development of oil. It was not until Harold Macmillan, who was Foreign Secretary in 1955, signed the Baghdad pact—a bit of a wind of change in Iraq—that things started to alter in the country.
	Before the signing of the Baghdad pact, Iraq was notionally independent, but dominated by British interests. Some 50 per cent. of its national income came from oil, essentially through the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum Company, and we had Crown bases in Habbaniya, Shaiba and Basra. About 4,000 RAF troops were stationed there; I was among those in Basra at about that time. The Iraqi Levies were also established—an Iraqi force entirely controlled by British officers. A puppet monarchy was established and the country had a basically feudal regime that was interested in land control. The development of oil provisions was very much in British hands.
	The only opposition in Iraq at that time was underground. Among the army officers were some who dissented from the developments that were occurring, as they were greatly influenced by what was taking place under Colonel Nasser in Egypt. There was also an Iraqi communist party, which from 1937 had been involved in strikes in the oil industry and at the docks in Basra, and was a major focus for intellectuals and trade union activists.
	From 1958, some economic and social circumstances improved. When people have a hope that things will get better in future, the possibility of establishing democratic avenues begins to emerge, but we did not see that as a something that it was desirable to nurture and assist. When the Kurds looked to develop their aspirations, they looked towards the establishment of a Kurdistan, but that would have upset Turkey, so we did not want to be involved in it. In a later period, there was perceived to be a danger of the Shi'a Arabs in the south falling into the hands of the ayatollah and other influences in Iran, but that was to misunderstand the nature of the Shi'a and their commitment to Iraq.
	Improvements took place in conditions in Iraq. A welfare state was established, educational provision was extended, and there were improvements in housing. I saw a slum area on the edges of Baghdad that looked as if it was from the biblical period, although it had been established fairly recently. The conditions were terrible, with streets of mud, mud huts and open sewers. All that was replaced and proper housing, new streets and electricity were provided by new regimes. A cultured society was developing and extending. There had always been a tradition of learning in Baghdad and in other places, and that was now beginning to extend to more people. The regimes underwent coups and counter-coups, and in the end the Ba'ath party emerged and Saddam Hussein began to take over in 1980. The conditions of life for the Iraqi people started to deteriorate from 1982 to 1983, when the impact of the Gulf war began to kick in and the sanctions regime began. In my view, sanctions should not operate unless the people of a country ask for them—as in South Africa—because they have a considerable impact on people's standard of life.
	Saddam Hussein's military measures and internal controls and the consequences of the Gulf war led to an absolute collapse in the standard of living of the Iraqi people. By 1980, their standard of life per capita had grown to 42 per cent. of Britain's, having risen, mainly as a result of oil, from a figure of 18 per cent. only about a decade earlier. That crashed down to 11 per cent. two or three years ago. The trading connection, oil for food, has improved it somewhat, and it has risen to about 13 per cent., but economic circumstances are knocking it down again. Should we really be going in to hammer such people? The humanitarian thing to do is not to take that avenue, but to get in there and give them the assistance that they need—to uncouple the regime by giving people rising horizons and hope.

Brian Mawhinney: I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for her introduction to the debate. Given the robust nature of this place, she was thoughtful and placatory.
	I can tell the Secretary of State that if I ever found myself having to go into a fire fight, I should be very happy to have her at my side. We would regularly disagree, and I am sure that she must occasionally be quite an uncomfortable colleague to have around the Cabinet Table, but her commitment to her responsibilities shines through. I am happy to pay tribute to her performance, not only in this debate, but throughout her tenure in office.
	I have no registrable interest in the debate, but I am a trustee of World Relief, a major Christian charity that works in several of the poorest countries of the world. We work on behalf of churches, primarily through indigenous churches, including redevelopment work, microeconomic development work and working with maternal care and with children.
	I therefore disagree with the supercilious comment of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), about whose speech and attitude I have nothing complimentary to say. There are hon. Members in all parties who are committed to humanitarian concerns. They act on that in their own time, in their own way and for their own reasons, in my case, largely for Christian motives.
	I want to consider children in that context, but I wish to make some other comments first. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the debate has not been partisan. Some hon. Members who are against the war or the United States—both traditions flourish in the country and the House—could use the subject as a stalking horse for another debate on whether we should go to war. I do not belong to that fraternity. As the right hon. Lady knows, I broadly support the Government's action. I believe that Iraq poses a serious threat to the world and to us. Like every other sensible human being, I view war as a last, not a first resort. However, war is sometimes the lesser evil. In that spirit, I want to make one point in the short time allowed.
	We have already heard many statistics about the terrible plight of children in Iraq. We have heard about the large number of stillbirths, the high infant mortality rate and the malnutrition—there is no point in repeating those facts. However, bearing the statistics in mind, I remind the Secretary of State of Christian Aid's comments on its website in October last year. It stated that
	"the humanitarian needs of the civilian population during and after any conflict must be met . . . When drawing up plans for any military action, it is the responsibility of the warring parties to guarantee access and provide sufficient resources for the provision of independent humanitarian assistance . . . As Christian Aid can verify, the war in Afghanistan revealed a huge gap between assertions that humanitarian space would be created for the delivery of aid and the reality on the ground".
	I should like the Secretary of State to focus on the disparity between the rhetoric and planning and the delivery. It is remarkable that we are holding such a debate today. Perhaps more than any other debate, it shows how civilised we are as a nation. Does anybody believe that a similar debate is being conducted in Iraq? Of course not. We have the determination to confront and deal with evil, but we understand that there are consequences. At a human level, we want to respond to them. Given the disparity between planning and delivery, I ask the Secretary of State to focus for a moment on the children.
	We have heard that the children are already hurting. However, when war comes and refugees start to move, many will be children. Children need special help, facilities and food. They need grown-ups who have expertise and a commitment to focus on their needs above those of others. As we all know, there is always the danger that we plan for mass humanitarian aid and forget specific needs.
	The Government delight in appointing tsars. I should like the House to appoint the Secretary of State the children's tsar for Iraq as a result of the debate. I have limited confidence in the United Nations. I have limited confidence in big multinational organisations, because I have been where the right hon. Lady has been. I have more confidence in our ability to set ourselves certain tasks and goals, and in a strong and committed Secretary of State ensuring that they are met.
	The right hon. Lady could do the world and the people of Iraq a service if she would let her officials get on with dealing with the big multinational institutions, and she would become passionate about making sure that the consequences of war are ameliorated to the best of her ability, which, as we all understand, will be limited. I ask her to make a commitment about the after-effects, for the children.

Joan Ruddock: In our debates on Iraq, many of us have pointed to history—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has done so today—to the west's double standards and hypocrisy, and to our role in arming and supporting the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We do not start on the moral high ground, but we are where we are; and we are, of course, on the brink of war.
	The question for me is whether that war would be just and proportionate. I have no doubt that it is possible to construct a legal argument within the terms of UN resolution 1441, but there are wider considerations in the course of war. We must weigh in the balance threat, degree of force proposed, and humanitarian consequences. My right hon. Friend has listed some of the possible threats that people in Iraq would face today, but I want to remind the House of what happened in the Gulf war in 1991.
	The UN estimates that between 140,000 and 200,000 Iraqis died as a direct consequence of the war, rather than because of anything to do with sanctions. More than two-dozen factories and stores containing chemical, biological and probably nuclear material were hit, and their toxins were dispersed. Carcinogens from blazing oil wells spread across thousands of miles. The systematic bombing of electricity generating facilities, and of water storage and treatment facilities, left survivors without drinking water. The inclusion of chlorine and medicine on the UN embargo list provided the preconditions for the epidemics that followed. Iraqi health services, previously described by the World Health Organisation as a
	"first-class range of medical facilities",
	were overwhelmed. Primary health care and disease prevention programmes ceased.
	By April 1991, an estimated 1.5 million refugees had fled to the Iranian and Turkish borders. By May, between 15,000 and 20,000 of them were dead. The UN reported
	"near apocalyptic results on economic infrastructure",
	and concluded:
	"Iraq has for some time to come, been relegated to a pre-industrial age".

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock: I will not. Most people in this House, including me, supported that Gulf war. My right hon. Friend said that we must minimise the risks if we go to war, but a few days ago the Pentagon let it be known that this time, the US plans to fire up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the air campaign. That is twice as many as it fired in the whole of the 40-day Gulf war in 1991.
	We are all aware that today's Iraq is not the first-world state of 1990; it is in every sense now a poor, third-world country. The effects of a Dresden-like bombardment on these extremely vulnerable people I find too horrific to contemplate. How many will die in that bombardment? How many refugees will die as they try to flee the country? What will be the environment for those who survive? My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that humanitarian contingency planning will have to take account of the deliberate or inadvertent release of any remaining stocks of chemical or biological weapons. What will be the effect on survivors, deprived of medicine, food and water, breathing a cocktail of carcinogenic air, and facing searing heat in the coming summer months? What will be the cost to the men and women of the armed forces, who will have to remain for months if not years after the immediate war? What will be the cost to Iraq's neighbours?
	Iraq has been described as the most dangerous rogue state in the world, and al-Qaeda as the most dangerous international terrorist organisation. President Bush seeks to persuade us that they are connected. I do not find that credible—but let us assume that they are connected. What then? Is it likely that the west will become a greater or a lesser target for terrorists if we carpet-bomb Baghdad? Is it more or less likely that instability will spread throughout the whole region?
	Some hon. Members have argued that whatever the political risk to ourselves, we cannot do nothing. I suggest that we are not doing nothing. Iraq's military might has been reined in, and we have the most robust inspection regime ever mounted anywhere in the world. The inspectors have the authority to destroy weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.
	Even were that to be achieved, there are hon. Members who argue—perhaps the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) came closest to saying this—that it might be better to have the war to save the people of Iraq from their existing fate. I cannot accept that. It is, of course, not the purpose of resolution 1441, and it cannot be part of the judgment that the Security Council will take on hearing the inspectors' reports.
	I cannot believe that that is the best way forward for the Iraqi people. We know what the immediate humanitarian results are likely to be, but the question is: what will follow the military onslaught? Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I want to refer to Afghanistan, because that is where I believe we can see the answer—I have been to Kabul myself.
	Let me give the House the financial context alone. The cost to the United Kingdom of military action in Iraq has been estimated at more than $8 billion. By comparison, the whole of the international community's pledges to Afghanistan for both humanitarian and reconstruction aid for five years have amounted to a mere $5 billion—half what initial estimates said was required.
	As others have said, progress is painfully slow. There is still no effective security outside Kabul, because of the United States' consistent refusal to support an extension of ISAF—the international security assistance force—outside the capital city. There is no trained national army or police force, and anti-coalition forces are still active in one third of the country. The World Food Programme estimates that 6 million people remain vulnerable, and the Select Committee on International Development has recently reported:
	"the humanitarian crisis was far from over and there was little evidence that large scale reconstruction had taken place."
	Needless to say, there is a strong feeling among Afghans that the west is beginning to walk away. I do not include my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in that. I know just how hard she has worked and how great her commitment to the people of Afghanistan is.
	I share the Prime Minister's aspiration for a new world order, but I do not believe that confidence can be drawn from the Afghan experience. Even less do I believe that a war in Iraq can be in the best interests of the Iraqi people. There can be no contingency humanitarian plans for those who will die. The United Nations has voted the means for solving the Iraq crisis peacefully, and that is the humanitarian response which I believe the House should make.

Gregory Barker: Although I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to say that, because of the new sitting hours of the House, I have had to leave a Standing Committee to come and join in the debate here.
	Whatever the rights and wrongs of military intervention against Iraq, it now seems sadly almost inconceivable that the march to war can be avoided. With or without the support of the country or the UN, the Prime Minister is clearly determined to topple Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime by military force. The likelihood of a war has been growing steadily since George Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech to the American Congress 12 months ago. That has been apparent to many in Parliament, to the army of pundits and observers in the media, and to the professionals involved in humanitarian relief whose job it will be to try to pick up the pieces and mitigate the potentially disastrous humanitarian situation that could quickly develop following the outbreak of hostilities.
	However, for many months it has seemed extraordinary that the one person in the Government specifically tasked with making preparations for just such a humanitarian crisis has singularly failed to set before the House a coherent strategy for dealing with the direct effects of military intervention by the Government. That is despite the fact that the Cabinet has mobilised more than 25,000 service personnel and dispatched to the middle east the largest naval taskforce since the Falklands war. For all this time, the Secretary of State for International Development has sat on her hands and stonewalled any inquiry. Despite the intensive military preparations, it is clear that the Cabinet has chosen to close its eyes to the inevitable consequences of its plans for the conflict that will surely come to pass.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, has repeatedly called on the Secretary of State to publish her Department's preparations for a possible war. She has been met with total silence. The right hon. Lady earlier pleaded that she had not been able to secure a debate in Government time to explain her plans, but she has had ample opportunity to set them out in response to the numerous written questions seeking answers to the matter.
	Last week, on 22 January, the Secretary of State simply stonewalled in response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who was seeking a statement on what specific assessment she had made of the humanitarian consequences of a war in Iraq. She said:
	"My Department is considering a wide range of contingencies, which take into account the current humanitarian situation in Iraq."—[Official Report, 22 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 307W.]
	That was a pathetic answer. With the drums of war beating ever louder and the prospects of a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi problem receding by the day, it would appear profoundly irresponsible and deeply reprehensible so woefully to ignore what the rest of the world can see so plainly. The consequences of our inaction now could be unnecessary suffering and even death on a biblical scale.
	The Secretary of State must pull her head out of the sand and engage with the non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian organisations without delay. Moreover, she must make a proper and full statement to the House of Commons on a regular basis, rather than be dragged here by an Opposition motion. In that way, her proposed course of action, or lack of it, can be properly scrutinised by the House. She and the rest of the Government must be held properly accountable to Parliament.
	The range of issues screaming out to be addressed is vast, and I shall not attempt to deal with them all today. However, I and many others would like to know, for example, that, in the event of military intervention in Iraq, electricity supplies will not be attacked where that would have a disproportionate impact on civilian needs, including the power for water and sanitation.

Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gregory Barker: I will give way to the Secretary of State, although she was very reluctant to give way to me.

Clare Short: Now that we have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say, I wonder if it was worth it. The hon. Gentleman might not be the most intellectually gifted Member of the House, but he might be able to understand that the military are not willing to share their military scenarios with people like him. We therefore cannot share those scenarios with the House. I have outlined the risks, but what the hon. Gentleman is asking for is foolish. He is not serious in what he is saying.

Gregory Barker: That is absolute nonsense. We are asking the Secretary of State to engage with non-governmental organisations and to talk to the people on the ground who are taking the risks and who would deal with the humanitarian disaster on the front line. When we talk with NGO representatives, they scream out that the right hon. Lady simply is not engaging with them, meeting people, holding talks, or undertaking the consultation that is vital if a humanitarian crisis is to be avoided.

Clare Short: Stupid little boy.

Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State knows very, very well what I am saying. She has hidden her head in the sand because she cannot face the possibility that her Labour Government will go to war on the very issue over which she resigned from the shadow Cabinet back in 1990. Political expediency has prevented her from taking on responsibilities that she knows she should fulfil.

Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend share my disquiet at some deeply worrying comments made recently by people in non-governmental organisations? In particular, individuals at Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have commented on the lack of liaison between them and military organisations in this country and elsewhere, particularly following the Secretary of State's remarks that our military preparation for humanitarian aid in Iraq is just getting going.

Gregory Barker: I completely share those concerns and shall allude later to a letter that 500 students and academics from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have written to two medical journals.
	Have the Government made representations to our American allies about the protection of water and sanitation supplies in the event of military intervention in Iraq? What discussions have they had about food security? What evaluation has the Secretary of State made of the continuance of the UN's oil-for-food programme in the event of war with Iraq? If that programme is suspended, what will be the impact on the food needs of the civilian population? It is estimated that 49 per cent. of families in Iraq do not earn enough money to meet basic needs and 20 per cent. live in extreme poverty. According to the World Food Programme, malnutrition is widespread among children outside Baghdad.
	This morning, Julian Filochowski, director of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, told my researcher that for the two thirds of the population who depend on UN food rations, there are few, if any, coping mechanisms once food distribution is disrupted and water and sanitation systems collapse. Christian Aid estimates that following suspension of the oil-for-food programme, 16 million people will immediately be vulnerable to food shortages and malnutrition.
	Contingency planning for the prompt delivery of food and the effective restoration of power and sanitation is absolutely vital. If major infrastructure targets, such as power stations, are hit, as they were last time, there will be a sharp increase in the number of water-related diseases, because the Iraqi water treatment system is powered electronically. Two thirds of the rubbish in Baghdad is not collected. Cholera is rife. It will become impossible to store medical supplies, such as blood and vaccines, at appropriate temperatures. As I said, in an open letter to two leading medical journals, staff and alumni of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine warned that conflict could lead to hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed, as well as sparking famine and epidemics.
	Larry Hollingworth, the UN emergency co-ordinator who spoke at the excellent forum organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden in November, has said if there is a conflict, hundreds of thousands—even millions—of people could uproot themselves and move to rural areas of the country or try to leave Iraq. During the Gulf war, Iran, Jordan and Turkey took almost 1.8 million refugees. Iran hosts 3 million refugees, the most in the world.
	It is ironic that we know more about the contingency plans of the Government of Iran than we do about those of Her Majesty's Government. That is thanks to a recent visit to the Iran-Iraq border by Adam Leach, middle east director of Oxfam, and Paul Sherlock. From them, we know that the Iranian Government, in conjunction with Iranian Red Crescent, believe that as many as 900,000 people may flee towards Iran. What is more, that Government have already set up camps, zones and areas to cater for that contingency.
	It is appalling that it is easier to get access to the Iranian Government's contingency planning for a possible humanitarian disaster in which our Government must play a leading role than to extract information from a Minister in the House of Commons. The Iranian Government will need full assistance to cope with a further humanitarian crisis on the country's borders. Successful co-ordination between Governments, international agencies and NGOs such as Oxfam will be key to an effective response.
	There is no doubt that the architect of the misfortune of the Iraqi people is Saddam Hussein and that, free from his oppression, Iraq would be an infinitely better place for everyone. However, a heavy responsibility lies on the British Government as they weigh up the possibility of military intervention. A report by the worldwide Catholic network of aid agencies, following a visit to Iraq at the end of last year, concluded:
	"Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civil population that has already suffered so much."
	I came to the debate hoping that the Secretary of State would map out a blueprint for a humanitarian relief programme. We have been sorely disappointed; there has been not even a shred of detail, nor an apology for the lack of detail to date, and no encouragement that more will be forthcoming. There has been a great deal of hand wringing, but little else.

Ann Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not in the Chamber at present as I entirely agree with one of the points that she made. It is unfortunate, given that we are debating such an important subject, that the reforms of the House mean that many Members leave early on a Thursday afternoon. I hope that supporters of that reform will think again and that we shall have an opportunity to reverse it.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who is also not in her place at present, has said time after time that the best scenario is that war should be avoided. Everyone in the House would agree with that sentiment; we all want to avoid war if it is at all possible.
	Aid agencies point out that
	"military action against Iraq could trigger a major humanitarian disaster".
	They call on world leaders
	"to draw back from the brink of war".
	Assessments of the humanitarian situation in Iraq are horrific, as many colleagues have pointed out. Up to 16 million people are entirely dependent on food aid, and the country's water and sanitation systems are stretched to the limit. The director of Christian Aid said:
	"We believe that peaceful alternatives to conflict are not yet exhausted. All parties have a legal—and we believe a moral—obligation to seek the peaceful resolution of this dispute through the United Nations."
	As my colleagues know, I have argued for a long time that for two decades top Iraqi officials have committed massive crimes and atrocities: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. All those crimes have been impressively recorded by the United Nations, by the American, Kuwaiti, British and Iranian Governments and by non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, as well as Indict, which I chair.
	The former American ambassador for war crimes wrote an interesting article in the Washington Post a few months ago. He said that, throughout the Clinton Administration he had waged a
	"lonely campaign to compile the criminal record against the Iraqi regime and to seek indictments of Iraqi officials. By the end of 2000 our investigative team"—
	Indict was part of that team—
	"had amassed millions of pages of documents, resurrected an extensive archive of evidence prepared by U.S. Army lawyers and investigators during the Gulf War."
	That included our Operation Sandcastle investigations, which have never been published. The article then said that the team
	"interviewed key witnesses, and published a report and released aerial photography demonstrating Iraqi crimes against humanity.
	Yet no Iraqi official (at least 10 are of extreme interest) has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. Efforts to obtain U.N. Security Council approval for an ad hoc international criminal tribunal encountered one obstacle after another in various foreign capitals . . . and even within the Clinton administration"—
	people were pulling both ways in that Administration, as they appear to be in the present United States Administration.
	"The usual excuse was that a tribunal would jeopardize either the United Nations' inspections regime or its sanctions regimes. We needed Hussein's co-operation, which a criminal indictment might discourage."
	We know from the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and now for Sierra Leone, that indictments of alleged war criminals who lead tyrannical and genocidal regimes can destroy their political careers, isolate them internationally, end their regimes and even achieve justice.
	Even at this late stage, an indictment could bring about the necessary regime change in Iraq—I believe it is necessary—and would avoid the necessity for military action. Even now, the Security Council could establish an international criminal tribunal to investigate and prosecute the Iraqi leadership. Its indictees would be subject to arrest and its creation could pave the way for UN-authorised military action later to neutralise any weapons and terrorism threats and to bring about regime change with international support.

Gregory Barker: I am listening to the hon. Lady carefully and have great respect for her work. I am genuinely interested to know this. We have heard of the possibility that the United States would support a safe haven or place of exile for Saddam Hussein. How does the hon. Lady reconcile that possible avenue for averting conflict with the genuine and widespread support for indicting those vicious criminals?

Ann Clwyd: It is not up to any country other than Iraq to decide that Saddam Hussein and his regime should avoid prosecution for war crimes. It is not the responsibility of the United Kingdom or the United States of America to take that decision; it is a decision for the Iraqi people. It would be wrong for us to offer Hussein a safe haven—an escape from indictment for war crimes. In fact, I asked an Iraqi friend—an Iraqi Kurd—how he would feel if that happened. His answer was, "If it happened, we would find our own way of dealing with it." It is obvious what that means. That idea ought to be hit firmly on the head. The time for offering Saddam Hussein incentives is over. He and his colleagues deserve to be indicted and the UN Security Council must disarm Iraq. At the end of the day, both justice and international security must prevail.
	My hon. Friends have often heard me talk about the work that our organisation, Indict, has been doing. They will be interested to know that only this week the Attorney-General wrote to me to announce that he has refused to grant his consent to prosecute Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, Ali Hassan Al-Majid and Taha Ramadan for the crime of hostage taking during the Gulf conflict in 1990 under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. In all those cases, he says that that is because there is "insufficient evidence" to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. I found that absolutely incredible, as do most people.
	The idea that there is not enough evidence that Saddam was responsible for taking hostages, including many British victims, is unbelievable. The Attorney-General's ruling appears to place us, and anyone who seeks his consent on controversial matters, in a ludicrous circular argument. The evidence is there, and there is plenty of it. We have evidence from opposition colleagues, and evidence was taken from many of the hostages during the Gulf war.
	The Attorney-General's ruling means, in effect, that we have to provide not just a prima facie case, but one based solely on the material that Indict provided. An analogy would be that, instead of reporting to the police that our car had been stolen and expecting them to investigate who was responsible, we had to detect the culprit ourselves, rule out all other possible perpetrators and then prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did it before the Attorney-General would say that it was all right to prosecute. It is absolutely ludicrous.
	The public are not stupid. They will ask who gains from this decision and why is it being taken now. Is it a coincidence that there is talk of Saddam being offered safe haven and immunity from prosecution and that it is being found, on advice from Treasury counsel, that there is insufficient evidence to proceed against him? Most hon. Members would find that incredible.

Alistair Burt: I am pleased to have the chance to take part in this debate, which was rightly called for and ably opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It has been characterised largely by informed and passionate comment. Following opening speeches of just such a tone, I simply ask the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to reflect, with whatever humility she may possess, on the presumption behind her opening remarks that, simply because an hon. Member disagrees with her, is a man in a grey suit and belongs to a different party, he cannot possibly care about these matters quite as much as she does.

Oona King: Our surprise is that, during 18 years in government, the Conservative party did nothing on these issues, which are of very great concern to us.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady in her inexperience makes a remark which on reflection she may regret: she should give due credit to those members of the Conservative party who filled the post of Overseas Development Minister, such as Chris Patten and Lady Chalker. In due course, the hon. Lady may care to think again. We might also watch her actions in the next few weeks, as events unfold, and see how much she cares.
	Whatever one's view of the war and the need for it, the brutal fact is that the situation of refugees in Iraq—internally displaced people—and the breakdown of structures there will not be deciding factors in whether we go to war. Although we all hope that war does not happen, it is essential to prepare for it. However, the sheer scale of the disruption anticipated should not only give pause for thought: it should give rise to some prompt and urgent preparation. It is alarming to note that the state of preparation, as so ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, seems so much poorer than was the case in the Gulf war or in Afghanistan.
	I will not linger on the current state of humanitarian affairs in Iraq, as that has already been outlined. I want to concentrate on internally displaced people and also on the countries to which they may flee. I have been in contact with Save the Children, which states that the number of internally displaced people in Iraq is already very high—somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million. In the event of war, up to an additional 900,000 people may be internally displaced, mainly as a result of the policies of the Government of Iraq, but also because of fighting between Kurdish factions.
	Living in shanty towns on the outskirts of towns, internally displaced people do not have access to agricultural land, food or income. They are particularly vulnerable if provisions do not reach them in conflict, and they tend to be overlooked in Government emergency assistance. Unlike refugees, IDPs do not benefit from a special protection mechanism in international law. We should ensure that we account for the vast number of insecure people within Iraq in our humanitarian contingency planning. The number of internally displaced persons will depend on the intensity of urban bombing; the intensity of street fighting; the breakdown of the food distribution system in terms of supplies; whether roads remain open and the transport means are there for safe travel; the duration of the war; and the emergency provision of water and sanitation facilities. It is hard to imagine the consequences of probably 2 million internally displaced people within Iraq. We need to be aware, however, that these displacements will be the immediate consequences of strikes on Iraq. On top of some 5.4 million people in the south of the country, according to the UN's estimate, who will need humanitarian intervention and are expected by the UN to be accessible for support, we must therefore consider catering for a further 2 million internally displaced persons.
	I hope that when the Secretary of State returns to the Chamber she will say how the Government intend to ensure that humanitarian agencies and the UNHCR are properly resourced and co-ordinated to address the potentially vast number of displaced people. Where are they likely to go? Some will flee inside the country. Many will flee to the north, which is considered safer, as the Kurds are based there. What preparations have been made in the north to cope with the influx of those from the centre and the south of Iraq? Of course, more people will flee across borders. During the Gulf war, Iran, Jordan and Turkey took most of the 1.8 million refugees. Because the aim of this war is regime change, the refugee numbers may be higher this time. United Nations estimates suggest that some 900,000 may go to Iran; up to 270,000 to Turkey; 50,000 to Jordan; and others to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We must now ask whether those countries are prepared to offer humanitarian aid and support to the thousands of refugees who will arrive at their borders. We need to encourage them to do so by supporting them and offering funding for their efforts.
	I spoke on the telephone this morning to Deputy Foreign Minister Bak of Jordan, and I am grateful to his excellency for giving me some of his time. He said that the problem is that the situation is so uncertain. Not only does Jordan not know how many people it will receive; it does not know in what condition people will arrive. Preparation is therefore very difficult. Jordan is working very hard with UN agencies and with non-governmental organisations, but is looking for financial support from outside.

Cheryl Gillan: Did my hon. Friend receive any indication today that Jordan was reluctant to discuss humanitarian contingencies, which was certainly the impression given by what the Secretary of State said earlier?

Alistair Burt: I got no impression of that from my conversation. His excellency was very open and straightforward about the situation, and was happy to discuss things with me. He was aware that I was speaking in the House this afternoon.
	Jordan has a particular concern about water, in which it is one of the 10 poorest countries in the world. Minister Bak remarked ruefully that he would be very grateful to have in his country some of the clouds that he sees heading in our direction on the CNN weather charts at the moment. He mentioned in particular the situation affecting funding. The European Union in particular has been hesitant to announce its plans because it hopes things will not happen. The UN has also reported that it has been difficult to attract money because people hope things will not happen. He made the point that it is all very well for people far away to wait for things to happen, but that he and his country cannot afford to do so. He said that if aid arrives now and it turns out that it is not needed for the immediate consequences of war in Iraq, there is no need to worry: it can still be used to assist the 200,000 refugees from the Gulf war who are still in Jordan. I make a plea on the Minister's behalf for aid to be sent urgently to assist Jordan and, I suspect, its neighbouring countries.
	A further sadness is that it is not just a question of people fleeing safely over borders. Getting over the border in the first place is a problem if the border is mined or electrified. We recently received information that the Kuwaiti border is electrified. Are the Government aware of that?
	Refugees at or near borders, as well as internally displaced people, who cross to the three northern Governments will be severely affected by the many land mines in the area. Save the Children told us that the borders with Turkey and Iran are some of the most heavily mined in the world. UNHCR points out that there is no mine action programme or mine awareness education in the centre and south of Iraq, and that that will exacerbate the number of mine injuries. Displaced urban populations and children will be particularly unprepared for living in a mine-infested environment. How will the Government prevent vulnerable families fleeing to dangerous areas that may be mined or electrified?
	No one in the Chamber contemplates war lightly—neither the Prime Minister, who bears the greatest responsibility of his life on our behalf nor the most ordinary Back Bencher, who carries a lighter but still significant burden: the expectations and concerns of a trusting electorate. Whichever way the decision goes, the humanitarian consequences for the people of Iraq are likely to engage us for some time. They will certainly affect our excellent armed forces as they prepare for their usual constructive role in such circumstances. The least we can do is to engage with the circumstances of the people of Iraq and, as the Secretary of State said, assist in the recovery of their country after so many years of brutality and destruction.

Julie Morgan: Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the humanitarian consequences of a possible war on Iraq.
	In recent months, there has been a feeling that we are moving inevitability towards war, but I do not accept that war is inevitable. I still hope that a diplomatic solution will be found, and many hon. Members have said that we must do our utmost to prevent it from happening. The debate is important because we can set the humanitarian consequences of the war against the aims of the war, which causes me to ask: at what price war? I hope that when the Prime Minister and President Bush consider the problem at the weekend, they also weigh up the humanitarian consequences of going to war. I do not think that war is the lesser evil.
	The recent leaked UN report on the humanitarian impact of such a war shows the vulnerability of the Iraqi population, half of whom are under 14, as many hon. Members have said. The children will be most affected by a conflict. They are most affected by the regime and will suffer most. How will the international community protect them and their families? From what the United Nations says, that will be very difficult, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, although she did assure us that the structures are being put in place. But the country is vulnerable, much more so than in 1991.
	As other hon. Members said, most of the Iraqi people depend on the Government for their basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, 80 per cent. of average Iraqi household income depends on food rations, with 60 per cent. of homes solely dependent on them, which is 16 million people. Those people will be directly affected by any disruption in food supplies, which a war will inevitably bring. Obviously, the amount of disruption will depend on which part of the country people live in. The issues are different in the north and in the south and central areas, as hon. Members said.
	My right hon. Friend said that the UN is preparing for war and considering the humanitarian consequences, but I am worried about what money is being made available in the UN. The leaked draft UN report of 7 January 2003, only three weeks ago, says that the UN agencies will not be able to reach their minimum level of readiness unless initial requirements are provided. On 7 January, no funds were available to pre-position stocks to constitute the minimal level of preparedness that the UN talks about. Is the document correct? Has there been any change in the situation since 7 January? I hope that my right hon. Friend can say whether any more money has become available since 7 January.
	In the crisis that war will bring, the UN tells us that 4.2 million children under the age of five would be highly vulnerable, as would 1 million pregnant women. At present, 30 per cent. of babies in Iraq are born with low birth weights. Only 80 per cent. of children have had the measles vaccination, and the report says that a measles epidemic is likely. It estimates that, in a war, 30 per cent. of under-fives would be at risk of death from malnutrition. Those figures have been given several times today, but they cannot be stated too often.
	There is still a shortage of drugs and vaccines, according to the UN, and UNICEF expects a shortage of drugs, especially antibiotics, within a month of the outbreak of war, as the population begins to suffer from diarrhoea and the other illnesses associated with the inevitable consequences of drinking water supplies being cut off in the event of war.

Kerry Pollard: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the southern parts of Iraq in particular, many babies are still being born malformed—some with two heads—as a result of depleted uranium used in the last war? We perhaps have that to look forward to in the next one.

Julie Morgan: I had heard that. The situation is of great concern.
	The British Government are one of the largest donors to Iraq, having given about £100 million since the Gulf war. Our aid has focused on health, sanitation and water, but still, under the present regime and with the effect of sanctions, Iraq's mortality rate in the centre and the south is 2.5 times the level recorded in 1990. Despite the slight improvement that has already been mentioned, the present situation is very bad, and it is likely to be much worse after a war is declared.
	I come now to the situation of refugees. The UN expects that up to 1.45 million refugees and asylum seekers would try to flee the country. Some countries may deny access to refugees or make them stay in camps on the borders or just inside Iraq. As the borders are mined, it is likely that there will be casualties caused by the mines, especially on the borders with Iran and Turkey. Therefore, I too wish to ask the Government what they will do to try to stop families fleeing into areas where there are mines.
	I recently visited Iran, which already has 2 million refugees from Afghanistan. We had discussions with the agencies about the plan in Iran to encourage Afghan refugees to return to Afghanistan over a period of four years. Many of them are very reluctant to go back, for reasons that have been mentioned today. Outside Kabul, they do not know what they would be going back to. That is an important point that we should bear in mind when we think that there may be many Iraqi refugees entering Iran, which has the highest population of refugees in the world.
	There will also be internally displaced people, estimated by the UN at up to 900,000, in addition to those already in Iraq. They are the most vulnerable in the world. The Save the Children Fund has briefed us on the fate of internally displaced people, who are without the established system of international protection. It has vividly described the experiences of children who have been displaced throughout the world. Many become separated from their families and are most vulnerable to sexual abuse and attack and at risk of malnutrition. These children will also lose out on education and on most of their childhood, because the problem will take many years to set right. They will not have the opportunity of normal play activity. Already in the centre and south of Iraq, one in three girls do not attend primary school, so there is disruption to their education. If children become internally displaced, there is a much greater chance of disruption. The protection of displaced children is a priority for the United Nations, which has produced guiding principles on such children, and it is essential that they are followed. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to ensure that, if war starts, the UN protocols are observed?
	I am pleased that we are having this debate. In deciding whether to go to war, we must take into consideration the humanitarian consequences. At present, I do not believe that war is justified, and everything that has been said today confirms me in that view.

Cheryl Gillan: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who posed some interesting questions that I hope the Secretary of State will have time to answer in her winding-up speech.
	First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on calling for this debate. I agree with her opening remarks and those of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I, too, was supposed to be serving on a Committee considering secondary legislation. It was a difficult choice, but I deemed this debate more important—there is no doubt that within the next few weeks we will more likely than not be fighting a war on Iraqi soil to remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of a brutal and vicious dictator. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said in her excellent opening speech, virtually all contributions to previous debates in the House have concentrated on military operations and the justification for action. It is surprising that the Government have not placed more emphasis on the humanitarian side of the equation, and I hope that today's debate will genuinely help to strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State and give her a louder voice in Cabinet discussions.

Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that the humanitarian and military effort are one and the same? The military need to prepare for what will subsequently be demanded of them. As the Secretary of State said, she is only just starting to liaise with the military so that they can take over many tasks that non-governmental organisations have said they will not do if biological or chemical agents are used in theatre.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is right, and anticipates the military angle that I hope to discuss later.
	Except for the privileged few, Iraq and its people are in pretty poor shape, as everybody has attested. Almost three quarters of the population now depend on food handouts, and child mortality has rocketed due to the combined effects of malnourishment, poor sanitation, lack of clean drinking water and grossly inadequate health care.
	Children are not the only vulnerable ones. Elderly and handicapped people and those who have been internally displaced are also living in highly precarious conditions. Military action itself will leave a legacy of destruction and deprivation on top of the existing humanitarian disaster. It will drive sick and starving people in their thousands through hostile conditions across the border into surrounding countries, and will displace people from their homes and separate them from family members. There is no doubt that people will die. It is therefore imperative that the House understand the Government's plans and the readiness of DFID and the relevant agencies for involvement in the difficult task of delivering swift and effective aid in a complex humanitarian emergency.
	I want to explore in the brief time available the role of the military and the pitfalls that may face them. In the past 20 years or so, they have increasingly found themselves facilitating humanitarian assistance following conflicts. Indeed, I have seen our troops in operation in Pristina and surrounding areas, where they played a major role both in peacekeeping and in helping to rebuild communities devastated by war. The military do not act in isolation—they have to deal with various agencies and organisations, all of which have different roles and responsibilities, different methods of working and different chains of command. That can lead to problems, as past experience has shown. I should like to know whether the lessons of previous humanitarian operations have been learned and whether they will be put into practice in any potential conflict.
	The first concerns assessment. In dealing with a complex humanitarian emergency, the first priority is rapid assessment to identify or even confirm needs, identify public health requirements and determine priorities and resources. Following the Gulf war, it was found that both civilian and military personnel working in Iraq were not trained in rapid public health and needs assessments or survey skills. I believe that the MOD and DFID have undertaken efforts to train both civilian and military personnel in those vital and basic skills. If so, may we have the details? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the training so far has been sufficient?
	A second issue that arose was the poorly defined role of the military, which contributed to co-ordination problems. What has the Department done to ensure that better communication between agencies and the military will be facilitated in the field during the humanitarian phase of the operation? Such was the failure of preparation that the aid efforts were even hampered by workers and military personnel being unable to speak the same language or the local language. What language training has been carried out for our NGOs and our forces?
	Thirdly, political barriers to effective aid delivery were encountered in the last Gulf conflict. The western relief programme, Operation Haven, for the displaced Kurdish population was not as successful as it might have been. The refugees were restricted to high, cold and exposed mountain slopes, with poor sanitation and water supplies. The mortality rate was consequently high, and even though the public health needs strongly indicated the need for a rapid move, probably to a position over the Turkish border, that was not possible. Turkey was having its own internal political problems with the Kurdish nationalist movement, and some commentators have speculated that that may have been why the refugees could not be moved to more suitable terrain.There is no doubt that many people died from the harsh conditions, and would not have died, had they been moved to suitable areas.
	What has the Secretary of State done to ensure that suitable sites have been identified in Iraq or the surrounding countries, and what discussions have taken place or are planned to take place, particularly with Turkey, to reduce the likelihood of the situation being repeated? We need to be able to guarantee that political expediency does not take precedence over epidemiological evidence.
	Fourthly, the western relief programme was hampered by the absence of the UNHCR and its usual co-ordination role because its mandate did not cover internally displaced people. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether that is still the case, or whether it will be able to play a full role in any relief programme, irrespective of the status of the people?
	Practical issues have arisen in other humanitarian relief operations and I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady could address these. Initially, in Goma in 1994, the military rather than an NGO such as Oxfam was required to provide a clean water supply for more than 50,000 refugees from neighbouring Rwanda. The military personnel faced huge technical problems for which they were not well equipped, and within eight days, a cholera epidemic raged through the camp, killing more than 30,000 refugees. In the end, at the height of the epidemic, more then 100 NGOs and 50 military contingents were working together. The UNHCR had no control over them, and when the final analysis took place, it was discovered that the military interventions were six times more expensive than the NGO interventions, and of course their presence in this instance exacerbated the co-ordination problems in the field. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the lessons from Goma have been taken on board, and that only well-equipped personnel with appropriate equipment and training will be used in any humanitarian aid programme in Iraq?
	Also in Rwanda, a small military contingent set up a field hospital for the refugees in Gikongoro and after a few weeks passed the operation over to NGOs. Although the military had provided superb medical and surgical care, it was found that the death rate among the refugees was more than eight per 1,000 per day, which is far above the accepted norm of 0.5 per 1,000 per day. Post-event analysis showed that although the medical care was excellent, the military had not recognised that the lack of shelter, water and sanitation was a priority, and the resulting public health problems had caused the high mortality. They had been focused on the priorities that they had rightly identified through their military training—that is, treating the wounded—and had failed to appreciate the public health implications. Inadvertently, they had added a dimension to the problems and many refuges died from common communicable diseases before it was even realised.
	There are many other examples where the best intentions have not resulted in the best outcomes. I should like some reassurances, in particular that DFID has addressed the poor training and inadequate preparedness of personnel, the inadequate understanding of public health problems and priorities, the variable quality and poor targeting of aid, the political override of epidemiological needs, and the lack of co-ordination of military and civilian or NGO operations.
	In addition, I would like to know what the MOD has done on those issues and about equipment, training, liaison with NGOs and civilians, cost-effectiveness studies and command structures during the aid phase. Military contingents have a role in humanitarian aid programmes, but those issues need to be addressed. The one thing that the military hate is dual tasking. Therefore, I should also like an assurance that there will be a follow-on military contingent to provide appropriate aid and security following any conflict.
	We all hope that war will be avoided, but that depends on the actions of Saddam Hussein. We in this House need to know in the eventuality of war that we are well prepared to help the people of Iraq. The Secretary of State has so far disappointed us with her responses, but she will have another opportunity at the end of the debate to give the reassurances that we require. I hope that she will take that opportunity.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I wish to make colleagues on both sides of the House aware of a letter that I wrote this week to the Prime Minister. It states:
	"Dear Tony,
	I write to you on a matter of real urgency at a time when so much concern is focused on the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors and when public opposition is growing against military action and the perceived reasons for taking such action. We have in my view little need to look for new weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a trigger for action when there is already so much evidence of their use against the Kurds.
	I am a good friend of Professor Christine Gosden, Professor of Medical Genetics at Royal Liverpool University Hospital Department of Pathology. She is also a nationally and internationally renowned individual, her reputation mainly focused in the area of weapons of mass destruction. Professor Gosden and her professional colleagues throughout the world meet regularly to discuss"
	problems associated with WMD
	"and the medical response to the deployment of chemical and biological weapons in Northern Iraq. She and I are meeting with representatives of the Foreign Office to discuss the funding of several small projects in the area. However, we are both desperately concerned about a number of specific issues about which she has provided me with much reliable, verifiable and disturbing information, some of which I now summarise.
	It seems likely that Saddam Hussein may currently be using weapons of chemical mass destruction against the population including Pesh mergas of Northern Iraq, members of the CIA, and MI6 throughout Iraq, as well as aid workers and Government officials who are working on plans to establish an administration after the current regime has been disposed of. However, what we do know is that WMD have been used against the population in Northern Iraq on a wider scale than has been recognised and may currently be a threat to the population in clandestine use including that in food and water supplies. The agents carried by these mediums may include aflatoxin, anthrax, small pox, plague, botulinum toxin, toxic radioactive waste, radiation weapons, and ricin. In addition, Professor Gosden believes that Saddam may even be infecting people in prison and then releasing them to mingle with members of their indigenous community, spreading such diseases as small pox and the plague. Whilst there is as yet no direct evidence of these latter practices, there are several reliable reports about experiments using prisoners to determine the human effects of ricin, and the contamination of water supplies.
	My main concern is that we (as a primary aid giver to and possible invader of Iraq) are currently incapable of assessing the risks to the population by measuring the extent to which these agents are now being deployed there. What is certainly known, however, is that deaths are increasing in all age groups and that the diseases and genetic conditions exhibited by the Iraqis derive from interactions with various highly toxic agents. The levels of cancer, range of cancers, genetic and chromosomal defects exhibited by the people exceeds that exhibited by any normal population, but is matched by communities that fall within chemical and nuclear disaster areas, such as Bhopal and Chernobyl.
	I am very concerned that we lack sufficient information about the consequences of chemical and biological weapons and that this paucity of knowledge will leave us ill-prepared to deal with the health problems of the people of Northern Iraq and battle troops if and when we invade the country. Professor Gosden and her team have developed a chemical and biological testing and treatment programme that needs to be implemented quickly to protect invading allied troops and Iraqi civilians from chemical and biological attacks. There is obviously an immediate benefit associated with this proposed programme for the indigenous people involved, but far more importantly the data collected from the testing programme would be of inestimable value for British and American intelligence and military planning agencies.
	Unless you can assure me to the contrary, Christine is unaware of any agency carrying out such studies in the area of Northern Iraq at this time. Since this is one of the highest risk areas for the deployment of chemical and biological weapons, it is surprising that apparently no attention is being given to analysing the ongoing health effects of the previous extensive use of weapons of mass destruction on the people of the region. You will know that, under sanctions, few aid agencies now have licences allowing them to provide support for the people of the region. Have you carried out any analyses to determine the preparedness of these agencies to deal with the aftermath of the possible war with potentially millions of victims, including military personnel and aid workers, subjected to cocktails of biological and chemical weapons? Furthermore, has consideration been given to extending the list of aid agencies, who are allowed to deliver aid into the area, and how are these agencies being briefed and made ready for the task that may face them?
	I am concerned that the existing structures responsible for providing health care and relief in Iraq are inadequate. There is a very real fear that some personnel involved with W.H.O. and the U.N., (because they have to work through Bagdad government departments), have become part of the regime that denies health care to the Iraqi population. The aid agencies operating in that area have virtually no diagnostic provisions or facilities and possess limited resources for treatment of illnesses related to poisonous weapons. Meanwhile the US and military agencies who are responsible for undertaking the task of conflict and post-conflict planning for health provision have no experience of the cultural and social networks that exist on the ground and which would improve the effectiveness of any care and health provision they might offer. They are by definition war professionals, not health professionals, and they therefore lack the skills and resources to deal with the people appropriately, especially in view of the large population of Moslem women to whom on religious and cultural grounds they would be denied access.
	I support this argument by referring you to the situation in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, where the military are still providing significant levels of post-conflict support. It is a matter of record that in the aftermath of those particular conflicts there are now dramatically increased disability and mortality rates amongst the indigenous populations, especially mothers and babies. Clearly the environment that our troops and allies may face in Iraq will be unprecedented in comparison to these previous theatres of war, and the problems that they face thus far greater.
	In this context, I would like to ask you what action has been taken in relation to the following.
	Has the Ministry of Defence developed strategies with medical teams from the UK and across the world with expertise with weapons of mass destruction to enable proper testing to be carried out in the region.
	What is being done to provide medical assistance for those in danger in the region, such as supplies of antibiotics for potential plague and anthrax attacks, and bleach for attacks using biological agents and chemical agents such as V", ricin and mustard gas.
	What are we providing for the current investigations into the effects of weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations, with particular and sensitive reference to both Islamic culture and the fears of the people.
	What support should we be giving to initiatives for the research and implementation of conflict recovery strategies for populations ravaged by modern conflicts, embodying modern technological, molecular and therapeutic modalities that are sensitive to the culture of the people in conflict zones.
	In conclusion, I would wish clearly to state that, as a pragmatist, I continue to accept the probable necessity of the forthcoming conflict with Saddam Hussein, and that I am relieved that we are finally settling to the task of removing this clearly deranged and murderous man. I regret, however, that the justification to do so appears, at least in the public's perception, to have arisen as a consequence of US policy and its perceived preoccupation with economic and oil-based arguments rather than flowing from what should be our own government's concern for humanitarian and moral issues—and indeed that we did not argue for this type of humanitarian intervention for this population damaged and killed by WMD many many years ago."

Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, even though I, too, have had to give up on a Standing Committee in order to be here. We were debating whether Rupert Murdoch should own Channel 5, but this is a far more important debate for the House, which I hope will colour the decision on whether we go to war. The humanitarian aspect of any war in Iraq is surely part of considering whether we go to war, and I hope to make a few comments along those lines. I should like to say at the outset that I am receiving reports of very bad weather in mid-Wales, so if I have to miss the winding-up speeches, I hope that the Secretary of State will understand why. It will mean that I can get the earlier train, so that it will take me six hours instead of seven to get home. We shall see.
	I am pleased that the Conservative party tabled the motion, because on the whole we have had a good-tempered, well-ordered and informative debate. However, there is one aspect that I should like to discuss. We have talked tangentially about the effect of economic sanctions on Iraq, but we have not considered whether the humanitarian situation in today's Iraq, or in post-conflict Iraq, would be better or worse if those sanctions were lifted or of a different nature. I want to read out a short newspaper story from The Guardian of 14 April 1990, which said:
	"The Government has informally relaxed the arms sanctions it imposed during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in its efforts to ensure that Britain is not left out of the international drive to re-equip the Iraqi regime."
	That was the then Conservative Government taking the opportunity, for trade reasons, to relax the arms embargo on Iraq. I want to turn that on its head to ask, in all seriousness, whether we are doing the right thing for the citizens of Iraq by maintaining economic sanctions, and whether we should have considered that at an earlier stage, when many hon. Members said that we should be doing so. We must face up to the reality that although the dreadful humanitarian situation that pertains in Iraq is mainly the result of Saddam Hussein's actions, it is partly because one of the tools of our policy in Iraq has been to keep the civilian population living a pretty miserable existence in the hope that they would overthrow the regime in their own time and in their own ways. That remains one of the unspoken aspects of the sanctions regime and the current situation in Iraq.
	Many hon. Members mentioned the humanitarian situation. I shall not reiterate all those facts and figures, but leave them to speak on the record. We have heard that 1 million children under five have chronic malnutrition, that fewer than half the homes in Iraq have access to piped and clean water, that a third of the power supply is still down, and that between 60 and 75 per cent. of the population are dependent on food aid. That is the situation now, 10 years after a very limited conflict that did not take troops into the major part of Iraq itself, and which certainly did not target the regime or try to overthrow it. I ask hon. Members to imagine, in the context of the conflict that we are facing, the situation after an all-out war in Iraq, especially if we were forced to go into Baghdad or to use air power to take it. It is important to remember that Iraq was once, and still could be, a thoroughly modern country with a proper infrastructure in terms of water supply, electricity supply, education, a health service—

Clare Short: I know that we are short of time, but I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman, because he may not be here later. Sanctions were imposed by the UN at the end of the war on the assumption that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would be dismantled quickly, sanctions would be lifted and the country would return to normal. Instead, Saddam Hussein retained those weapons. That is the dilemma that the world faces. Saying that we should remove the sanctions because the Iraqi people have suffered is the same as saying that Saddam Hussein can do what he likes. I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. The UK has worked for the simplification of the sanctions regime so that nearly everything can be traded, and only things that could be used militarily are banned, but that has proved difficult. The UN expected a brief sanctions regime, the dismantling of weapons and a thriving Iraq—it was Saddam Hussein who was not willing to go for that.

Simon Thomas: I accept the burden of the Secretary of State's comments. She is right to make those points. However, eight or nine years after the Gulf war, we realised that the sanctions regime was not working and that it did not put the right pressure on Saddam Hussein to make him do what we expected. We should have reconsidered it. I accept that the Labour Government did what they could to reform it, but if I have time, I shall mention one or two aspects that need further consideration.
	Iraq is a modern state, and its resources mean that it could become a powerhouse in the middle east. In that context, the position that people face, especially young people and children, is dreadful.
	I want to concentrate on water supply. The Department's policy emphasises water, and one of the few successes of the world summit in Johannesburg was an international agreement on water. It is dreadful to contemplate what might happen post conflict in Iraq. The water supply currently fails to reach the majority of homes, and 65 per cent. of the water that does reach homes is untreated. After air strikes, matters will be even worse.
	It was pointed out in an earlier intervention that dual-use material such as electric power generators could be utilised for military and civilian purposes. There is continuing discussion about several hundred small rural-based generators for water supply. Under the current sanctions regime, the UN has not given them the go-ahead.
	The Secretary of State referred to the oil-for-food programme. Clearly, the regime uses it as a tool to oppress its people. However, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that approximately 15 million people in Iraq depend on food aid and the oil-for-food programme. I appreciate that if the Secretary of State is winding up as well as opening the debate, she may have kept some of her powder dry. I hope that she will say more about the preservation of such programmes in a conflict and whether more can be delivered to the people of Iraq.
	I want to consider our armed forces' actions in Iraq. If we go to war, we hope that they will act in a humanitarian way as far as that is possible within military constraints. I am especially worried that our forces may be under direct United States control and that weapons that we do not countenance, such as landmines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium may be used. The Geneva conventions provide that
	"any objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"
	must not be targeted and that no military actions should be taken that
	"leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
	I hope that that will be taken into account, not only in this debate, but in other defence debates and any decision to go to war.
	I strongly believe that we can avert a humanitarian disaster in Iraq by avoiding war. I accept that the prime responsibility for that rests with Saddam Hussein, but the House and the country also have a responsibility. We must grant more time for the UN inspectors to do their work. We must not jump to conclusions simply because somebody finds a nerve gas suit or a biological or chemical suit. That does not mean that Iraq will use such weapons. We must allow enough time.
	We must bear down on Saddam Hussein and the current regime and we must ensure that we go through the United Nations. The Secretary of State always emphasises the UN. I hope that she will give her view on actions without UN approval. My party and I would not approve of that.
	We must avoid polluting the UN through browbeating it into going along with conflict in Iraq. Whatever the final decision, we must ensure that the UN is seen to be the international arbiter so that all countries, including Arab countries, continue to have faith in it and do not perceive it as a tool of US policy.
	I hope that those comments will be considered not only in the context of humanitarian aid, but in our decision about whether to go to war with Iraq.

Oona King: I welcome this debate on humanitarian contingency plans for Iraq, and I am grateful to the Conservatives for their interest in this critically important area, although in my view that is almost as surprising as Dracula securing a debate on blood transfusions for haemophiliacs. I note that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made a somewhat personal attack on me. What he does not seem to grasp is that my attack on the Conservatives is not personal at all; indeed, I had a meeting this morning with Baroness Chalker, one of the most intelligent and sincere people ever to grace the Conservative Benches.
	I am not looking at Conservative Members' personal qualities; I am looking at their record. Eighteen years in office and what did they do? They cut aid to the world's poorest people and linked it to trade. That is the record. It is a shameful legacy, which this Labour Government have consigned to the dustbin of history. I would be very happy to leave it there, if only Tory MPs would stop acting as though they ever did anything useful when it mattered: when they were in power.

Alistair Burt: If that is the hon. Lady's view, perhaps she might enlighten us as to the tone of her conversation with Baroness Chalker this morning.

Oona King: I am an executive member of the newly formed all-party group on Africa, which the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to join. However, he might also want to think about a reconciliation and truth commission within the Tory party, in order to come to terms with its shameful past on this subject.
	How urgent are our efforts to prevent blood being spilt, and to minimise any civilian casualties? Our first and foremost aim must obviously be to minimise the loss of human life. For the purposes of the current debate on Iraq, there are four possible causes of loss of life, all of which are more or less interlinked: first, military action; secondly, the development and use of chemical and biological weapons; thirdly, the poverty that faces most developing countries in that region; and fourthly—a particularly lethal cause of loss of life—Saddam Hussein himself.
	The latter is not a flippant point. I made the same point during a debate on sanctions in Iraq some years ago, and it was eloquently restated today by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The worst infant mortality and malnutrition in Iraq is in areas under Saddam Hussein's control. In northern, Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq, which face greater sanctions and shortages, loss of life is less. Saddam Hussein kills more Iraqi children than anyone else, but that does not mean we can abdicate our responsibilities to those same children. Saddam Hussein has built and used chemical and biological weapons, but that does not mean we can abdicate our responsibilities towards the prospects for their future use.
	The dilemma that we face is that if we permit the development of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, at some point we are inviting a terrible loss of human life. Yet if we take military action to disarm Iraq and enforce UN resolution 1441, we risk a more immediate loss of life. For this reason, it is my fervent, although perhaps futile, wish that we avoid military action. None the less, the decision rests with Saddam Hussein: it is up to him whether he wishes to do what he has been requested to do by the UN.
	So I agree with the Government's actions so far. Threatening Saddam Hussein with military force has been the single most effective thing that we have done in the past 11 years to get him to accept UN authority. And it is UN authority that is at stake. I trust that the UN will be given more time to carry out its work. If military action is taken, humanitarian risks are grave. As we have heard, 16 million people rely on food aid through the oil-for-food programme. That is 60 per cent. of the Iraqi population.
	Other humanitarian risks that have been set out include regional factionalism and bloodletting—we have seen terrible examples of that in Afghanistan, post conflict—risks to sanitation facilities; the deliberate or inadvertent use of chemical and biological weapons; and the terrible legacy of land mines and cluster bombs. Will the Secretary of State make representations—perhaps she has already done so—to the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister to ensure that those types of weapons are not used? Will she also let us know what further humanitarian aid the British Government are making available to Iraqi civilians? It might come as a surprise to people to hear that the British Government are one of the largest donors to Iraq, and that since the Gulf war we have committed nearly £100 million for water, sanitation and basic health provision. We also run a programme to help Iraqi refugees in Iran.
	However, the worst-case scenarios facing Iraqi civilians as a result of military action could dwarf the terrible problems that they have faced so far. That is why any military action must take account of humanitarian risks, perhaps in a way that challenges current military thinking. In the past, the vulnerability of the civilian population has not usually been at the top of the military's agenda—but if it is not at the top of the agenda this time, I have no doubt that the military will win the battle but lose the war.
	Half of Iraq's population are children under 14. If we do not protect those children, all the military hardware in the world will not protect us from the justifiable anger of the Muslim world—indeed, from the anger of all those who hold sacred the value of human life. This Government are renowned for having developed one of the world's most effective humanitarian programmes. For that reason, we have a responsibility to make every possible effort to ensure that humanitarianism is at the top of the international community's agenda.

John Barrett: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I shall echo some of the points that have already been made, but I also hope to raise a few issues that have not been raised so far.
	This is not the time to debate whether Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, United Nations approval, or even the importance of a substantive vote in the House—although many people, like me, are mystified by the Prime Minister's reaction to questions about a substantive vote in this place. If George Bush phones the Prime Minister and says, "We need to go to war now"—as he might—surely it is in everyone's interests, including those of the troops, to ensure that the Government and the Prime Minister have heard the views of the House first. The public are asking questions about the military action that will be taken in their name, and the House is not giving them the answers. I hope that that will be a debate for another day.
	What is at hand today is something that I believe the people of this country are deeply concerned about, as has been shown by the speeches that hon. Members have already made—something that, in the heat of the military debate, is in danger of being lost. The humanitarian consequences of military strikes in Iraq are nothing short of frightening. A high-impact scenario was suggested in the recent UN report, which said that military action could
	"result in a complete breakdown of state capacities and possibly civil war . . . This will trigger large scale internal and external population movements as well as massive humanitarian needs. Agencies' ability to respond would be severely limited for an extended period."
	Before we even think about the potential problems in Iraq after a conflict, it is important to stress the humanitarian situation now, before the first official bomb has been dropped—I understand that bombing in some areas has already started, and is being carried out with increasing regularity. The situation on the ground in Iraq is horrifying.
	Last week, I was fortunate enough to meet representatives of Save the Children, and they backed up much of the information that I had already received on this subject. The figures, which many Members have already mentioned, speak for themselves. Malnourishment and diarrhoea mean that Iraq is suffering the fastest increasing child mortality in the world: 10 per cent. of Iraqi children now die before their first birthday. As other Members have said, according to the World Food Programme, 16 million Iraqi people—60 per cent. of the population—are now wholly dependent on food aid. To put that figure in some perspective, the number of people who are now hungry in Iraq is roughly equivalent to the number who are in a similar situation in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Swaziland, Malawi, Mozambique and Lesotho all added together.
	Put simply, Iraq is unable to feed its own people, because of drought and the bureaucratic system of food distribution used by the Iraqi state authorities. The food going into Iraq is insufficient, and careful consideration will have to be given to how we shall help the innocent and the starving if military action commences. It is surely without question that any military action would further disrupt that food distribution, and probably stop it altogether. If conflict were to begin, Iraq's neighbours would likely close their borders and the UN oil-for-food programme would effectively end.
	However, food is not the only problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, Iraq's basic infrastructure is crumbling, with 50 per cent. of the sewage treatment plants not working. The water and sanitation systems that are left depend on the supply of electricity but, 12 years after the Gulf war, it is estimated that one third of the national power supply is still down.
	Iraq is a country in serious poverty. That is one reason why I find it incredible that we might create yet another humanitarian disaster, when the UK and the international community already have to deal with countless other disasters across the globe. A number of speakers have already outlined the situation in Zambia, Malawi, Ethiopia and Eritrea, but we are seriously talking about adding to the list. If military action does take place, that is what will happen. Are not the development budgets of the United States, Europe and Britain stretched enough already? Will they be able to cope with anything more?
	The contingency plan of the UN office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs admits the financial restraints that already exist. It states:
	"UN agencies have been facing severe funding constraints that are preventing them from reaching even minimum levels of preparedness. As a consequence, the current response capacity of the UN system remains well below the critical requirements established through the inter-agency planning process."
	The Secretary of State—for whom I have the utmost respect—does not want there to be civilian casualties. Of course she wants to avoid unnecessary deaths and inflicting yet more suffering on a population already suffering from misery, hunger and disease. I believe the right hon. Lady when she says that the British Government would be there to help people rebuild their lives. However, the Government's good intentions are not enough. We can all remember vividly how the Government said, in 2001, that they would help rebuild Afghanistan when the conflict there was over. They are making efforts to do just that, but the situation in Afghanistan is far from being a good-news story. Much of the country has reverted to the status that it occupied before the campaign against terrorism. Most of the country outside Kabul is under the control of warlords, and poppies that will become heroin on our streets are still being grown in the fields. Afghanistan is far from being a rebuilt nation.
	Last week, the Select Committee on International Development, of which I am a member, published a report on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. In paragraph 86, it stated:
	"Afghanistan is a completely wrecked land, with no institutions that work, no legitimate economy, no legitimate economy, no order of security and serious capacity shortfalls within Government."
	The report showed that there are still immense problems in Afghanistan. Before the Prime Minister and the Government consider their next military campaign, they must not forget that there is unfinished business from the previous campaign.
	I have seen no evidence to convince me that this country should go to war with Iraq. I can understand that, under certain circumstances, such action may have to be taken, but my view today is that war is not desirable, necessary nor inevitable. In my relatively short time as a Member of Parliament, more of my constituents have contacted me about Iraq than about any other issue. I do not take it to be a wholly representative sample, but I have not yet received a single letter, or spoken to one person in Edinburgh, West who believes that this country should be involved in military action at this time. Other hon. Members have told the House on a number of occasions of similar experiences, and I believe that that is very significant.
	I hope that the Government accept that a great deal more work will have to be done to convince a large number of hon. Members, and I believe the resounding majority of people in this country, that force should be used in their name, especially given the major impact that such force would undoubtedly have on ordinary innocent Iraqi civilians—on men and women, on young and old, but mostly on children.
	I hope that we do not go to war. Unfortunately, I fear that the decision may have been taken already. The humanitarian consequences of war in Iraq would last a generation. Today in Vietnam, children are still being born deformed or stillborn, without palates or chins, as a result of the effects of the agent orange dioxin—a weapon of mass destruction if ever there was one. If military action is taken, I hope that the UK Government will live up to their promise to make every effort to minimise civilian casualties and to help the people who definitely do not hold chemical weapons, pose any threat to this country or deserve further misery, but who will undoubtedly suffer most should military action be taken.

Glenda Jackson: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate Iraq and the possibility of war. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) a sense of stupefaction at the Conservative amendment on the Order Paper—

Alan Duncan: It's the motion.

Glenda Jackson: The motion on the Order Paper.
	I find it difficult to believe that the Conservative party, which spent 20 years behaving as though there were no such thing as a humanitarian act either at home or abroad, should choose to use the possibility of a war—a war in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) pointed out, thousands on thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will probably lose their lives—to make party political points.
	Attempting to condemn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is nothing less than shameful—albeit hardly surprising. The Conservative party when in government reduced aid year on year. We have heard much from Conservative Members of their concern about possible humanitarian damage, the special needs of children and the appalling situation for refugees if they flee across borders. They have asked my right hon. Friend what plans she has to ensure that the worst humanitarian catastrophe does not take place. Yet one of their number referred to refugees who are still in camps in Jordan following the Kuwait war. If memory serves me correctly, the Conservatives were in office for six years after that; why did they not have a humanitarian plan?
	We also heard much concern about the possibility of refugees escaping from the war and having to cross minefields. I am prepared to bet a sizeable amount of money that the mines were sold by the Conservative Government who year after year spent public money to advertise and encourage the sale of British weapons to developing nations at fairs that British citizens were not allowed to attend even as they paid for them.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady referred to my remarks about Jordan and refugees. I asked a junior Foreign Office Minister about that this morning, and the refugees still in Jordan have in fact been assimilated into Jordanian society rather than remaining in refugee camps. I thought it would be helpful to make the hon. Lady aware of that.

Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting his own record straight. I understand that the refugees in Iran have not been assimilated.
	I have made my position abundantly clear on the possibility of war with Iraq, and I will continue to do so. One argument advanced by the Conservative party today for war on Saddam Hussein was the obvious one about weapons of mass destruction. Another was his appalling human rights record. I was interested to hear that argument from a party that did nothing about—indeed, encouraged British businesses to invest in—Burma, whose regime was one of the most appalling in the world. I was touched by the Conservatives' concern that Iraqi oil must be the preserve of Iraqi people. They did not have the same attitude towards Nigeria or Burma. It is nice to know that they may be beginning to change, but I will always have my doubts about that, and I regret to say that my suspicions have been confirmed this afternoon.
	It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford and other Members on the Labour Benches to set out clearly, using well-informed and well-researched evidence, the absolute disaster that a war on Iraq would be for the innocent civilians of Iraq. There is no guarantee that any military action would kill or even capture Saddam Hussein.
	It is absurd to persist in the blithe belief that, at the end of a war that would undoubtedly be won by the most powerful nation in the world, a marvellous democratic Iraqi Government would be waiting in the wings, ready to slot into place. Reference has already been made to the international community keeping faith on its promises to Afghanistan. It is doubtful—or at least extremely debatable—that the international community will stay in Iraq for the length of time necessary to bring about democratic government that will have the support and loyalty of the Iraqi people.
	We do not have the right to engage in what will clearly be murder, and which will leave the most terrible legacy for generations of Iraqi civilians, without hard, verifiable evidence not only that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction but that he is able to deliver them against the United Kingdom, which is an absurd idea. Even more absurd is the idea that he could actually deliver them against the mainland of the United States.
	Both our Government and the American Administration are floating the idea that a further reason for the removal of Saddam Hussein is that he may have—they are beginning to move away from "he has"—clear links with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. However, before we move to an actual shooting war, evidence for that should be presented not only to the House, the American Senate and the peoples of the world but also to the United Nations.
	I would dispute whether it was exclusively the threat of violence and attack that got the UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq, but even if one accepts that, they are there. What do the inspectors ask for? They ask for more time. This morning, I heard an interview on the radio with the UN inspector with responsibility for examining the possibility that there are nuclear weapons in Iraq or the capacity to create a nuclear programme. He was categorical: the inspectors need at least five more months. Hans Blix has also asked for more time. That time should be given to the UN inspectors, and our Government and the American Administration should stop hiding behind the excuse that it is all up to Saddam Hussein. It is up to the United Nations; it should be the will of the United Nations.
	Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously. That should inform what happens over the next few months. However, the inspectors will not be afforded the time they need and I freely admit to cynicism when I say that that will not be because there are weapons of mass destruction nor because everyone is so outraged at that evil dictator, but because there is a window of opportunity for troops. If troops are not on the ground by the end of February, the weather will become infinitely too hot for them to fight effectively in protective clothing. That seems to be the trigger.
	A few moments ago I was standing in the Corridor—there was no one there but me. How dare we sit in this calm, quiet, panelled Chamber and have the audacity to make decisions that will be death for people thousands of miles away? We do not know them; they do not know us. We cannot take such actions without taking every opportunity and every diplomatic avenue to prevent a war.

Alan Duncan: I apologise to the House if I appear slightly bleary-eyed this evening. I stepped off a plane from the United States only this morning, having sat in the Security Council in New York on Monday and having spent Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington seeing members of the Administration. They do not have a gung-ho attitude; there is serious consideration of what might unfold, especially in relation to the humanitarian matters to which our motion is devoted. I am sorry that some speakers in the debate have not, in everything that they said, devoted themselves to those matters.
	I think that we can see the most likely course of events. I hope that there will be a second resolution—I think that there will. We shall see Secretary of State Colin Powell appear before the Security Council on 5 February. We will have a further statement from inspector Hans Blix on 14 February.
	War looks more likely than not and no one in all conscience can ever relish the prospect of war, but we are duty bound to assess what it would entail and plan for its consequences. That is exactly what the motion before the House attempts to do.
	Some of the accusations levelled against us have been out of place, distasteful and unworthy of many of those who have made them—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) is at it again.

Glenda Jackson: My only rider to the hon. Gentleman's statement was, "Invariably factual."

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has been asking questions about the humanitarian consequences of any war for a long time. She has done so in a spirit of constructiveness and in a responsible manner, not in a mood of point-scoring or petty politics, as some people have said. There is no better evidence of her attitude to the subject than her letter to the Secretary of State of 4 December. It was a well-reasoned and thoughtful letter, asking some serious and sensible questions of the right hon. Lady. I shall instance a few:
	"what will happen to the Oil for Food Programme . . . How effective are Iraqi aid agencies?"—
	and what happens if UN personnel have to leave the country?
	"Has consideration been given to protective clothing . . . What discussions have you had with your counterparts in the surrounding states",
	and what about the "pre-positioning" of supplies and people? What medicines and vaccines are there, what might be needed, and are there sufficient stocks? What liaison is there between civil and military agencies—a very important point, in particular in the early stages of anything that might happen, and,
	"What role does the Government envisage for the BBC Arabic Service?"
	No one can say that that is petty point scoring. No one can say that it is irresponsible. Those were grown-up, sensible and dutiful questions put by the Opposition to the Secretary of State.
	What did we get back? Five lines, which read:
	"Thank you for your letter of 4 December about Iraq. I am glad you share my concern for the Iraqi people."—
	that looked like a little pat on the head to me.
	"My Department is looking at all eventualities, and talking to relevant actors across the UK government and internationally. We are also in regular contact with the NGOs we already fund in Iraq. We are planning for a wide range of humanitarian contingencies."
	That was that.
	I simply do not understand the Secretary of State's petulance. There is no need for it. We have set aside all party consideration in being largely supportive of the Prime Minister and of the Government of which the right hon. Lady is a part—[Laughter]. I do not understand how the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) can laugh. Her attitude today has been lamentable.
	A similarly constructive attitude from the Secretary of State to our legitimate inquiries about humanitarian concerns would have been appreciated and will yet be appreciated in the remaining minutes of this debate. The right hon. Lady is to speak for a second time and will have the opportunity to answer the questions that she did not answer before, which I will deal with in a minute. First, I will deal with some of the interventions.
	The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate seems to have done a runner, but she intervened early in my hon. Friend's speech, as did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—I am afraid with another party political point, about asylum. The whole point about all that might happen in Iraq is not that it might become easier to escape persecution by coming to Britain, but that those who are born and live in Iraq might yet escape persecution by staying where they are. That is what all this is about.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, essentially has this policy on Iraq: let them stew. She is in favour of doing nothing. She adopts a totally illogical position. She does not want sanctions, but she expects containment. She says that containment is working, but she wants to drop sanctions. It is an utterly illogical position behind which there is no cogent thesis.

Jenny Tonge: I do not remember at any stage of my speech saying that containment was working. I do not think I even mentioned it.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Lady wants sanctions to be dropped. How does she think she would contain Saddam Hussein if that happened?
	In the minutes left, we in the House have a crucial opportunity to give the Secretary of State a second chance to inform us, which she failed to do earlier. In many respects, we have had a good debate. We have heard 12 contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) drew attention in particular to the plight of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) expressed his exasperation—I share his view—at the Secretary of State's sins of omission, and I hope that she can rectify them in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made an excellent and thoughtful contribution; she added to our deliberations.
	The Secretary of State spoke only of the risks. Let me return to what she said. Quite reasonably, she listed some of the risks that Iraq will face: ethnic fighting; the removal of electrical power, which will affect water and sanitation; the burning of oil wells; the disruption of the oil-for-food programme; and biological and chemical contamination. All of that is valid stuff. It says something about her analysis, but absolutely nothing about her proposed course of action. That is what the debate is about, and it is what we call for in our motion.
	When I intervened on the Secretary of State, she said that she would give us some details—but she did not. She gave us none at all. We have heard nothing whatever about her contingency plans, so let me try to set the parameters in which, I hope, she will be able to give us at least some information. There are some aspects of Iraq that give it good prospects for long-term recovery. There is a highly educated and intelligent population—the legacy, to an extent, of what was there before Saddam Hussein.
	There is secular government, albeit horrendous. Again, to an extent that is an advantage. There is a chance that, if the integrity of the state can be maintained, there will not be the ethnic fighting that the right hon. Lady suggested might be a risk. Crucially, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq will be able to benefit—sooner, rather than later—from the revenues that it can earn from oil, which can play a significant part in its reconstruction.
	Let us consider the shorter-term humanitarian needs: food and clothing suitable for the climate and the people and, crucially, water. If electricity has gone and people are moving, they will have no water. So stockpiles of water, particularly in the growing heat, will be absolutely crucial to the basic survival of the people who are bound to be displaced by any conflict. As soon as water goes and sanitation goes, there is the risk of cholera and other diseases, so there is an immediate need for vaccines of all sorts, for which adequate preparation can readily be made and admitted to the House without in any way compromising the military secrets that the right hon. Lady thinks compel her to some kind of Trappist vow.
	There will be the movement of people. We hope that there will not be massive movements of people across borders. We hope that, at worst, there will be internally displaced people, who perhaps can be helped more readily, given the existing aid structures in Iraq. In the short-term, the logistical needs of any kind of aid will probably rely on military co-operation to start with, rather than on civil personnel delivering all the aid. It is probably true—in some ways, I hope it is—that many people in Iraq, fearing what is coming, may have stockpiled up to a month's supply of food for their own use. That will provide them with a necessary and crucial breather for their survival if there is conflict.
	What I really object to is the fact that, despite the terms of our motion and the requests that we made in intervening on the Secretary of State, we have heard nothing from her about her plans. She could not even give us a basic list of those to whom she is talking. She could not, even in basic conceptual terms, address the sort of action that might be needed. Such an approach does not give away any secrets. If those things are not happening, it is a scandal. If they are happening, there is no reason not to tell the House today.
	The United States is devoting extensive resources to planning for humanitarian aid, with a professionalism and purpose that the right hon. Lady seems unwilling to replicate or even to discuss. I find the right hon. Lady's attitude today absolutely bewildering. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has been consistent, constructive and even rather dogged in asking her to make a statement and to explain her plans. We are grown up enough to know that she would rather not give certain details in public. She could even have offered some kind of private briefing for my hon. Friend, but she has not even had the basic courtesy to do that, even within the restricted criteria that we may accept need to govern what she says. All that we have done is ask for some basic information about the Government's plans for humanitarian aid to what may be a war-riven country.

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: No.
	Instead, all that has happened is that the Secretary of State has got ratty. We could be exchanging all sorts of ideas and suggestions, each of which might save lives. All that we have had from her, however, is a bizarre and peculiar reaction. I was looking forward, in the spirit in which the Opposition have approached this difficult moral issue, to congratulating her on her vision, commitment and sincerity, as I have done previously, and as I have regularly congratulated the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on everything that she has done in the middle east and elsewhere. Given that all we have witnessed today is apparent confusion, dereliction and seeming lack of grip, we must demand better.
	Let me try again, in the minute remaining, to ask the Secretary of State, in a spirit of genuine co-operation, what she plans to do to help with the humanitarian needs of Iraq should there be some kind of military conflict. Will she tell us a little about her budget; her priorities; who her partners will be, internationally and in Iraq; how her co-operation will work with the armed forces, and how responsibilities will be shared with other agencies? Will she give us a clue? If she does so, we will give credit where credit is due. If all we get is continuing silence and obfuscation, she will have to answer charges of negligence and disarray.

Clare Short: I asked at the beginning of the debate for permission to wind up, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is at her mother-in-law's funeral. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that permission again.
	After that pompous, smug and self-satisfied speech, let me say that I now understand what the Tory party is trying to say—[Interruption.] I am trying to speak, and already the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is heckling from a sedentary position. The Tory party is saying, "We welcome war, let us go to it. What are your plans to tidy up afterwards?" They do not appear to understand a number of things that I have tried to explain to them.
	First, it has been difficult to get all the parts of the international system that must prepare—[Interruption.] The Tories are heckling again, and they pretend that they are concerned about these matters. It has been difficult to get all those parts to prepare for all the different contingencies, of which there are many—it is not just a question of war or no war, and action to plan for war that will have certain inevitable consequences.
	It is a question of how the inspectors perform, whether there will be military action and what kind of military action it will be—all of this will relate to the situation in the middle east—and what kind of humanitarian consequences might flow. Much of what needs to be prepared must be lined up against the military contingencies, which it has been difficult to get the international system to talk about. Even when it will do so, I am not in a position to report to the House the details of all those discussions. Similarly, the UN system, which is responsible to its members, most of whom do not want to foresee military action in Iraq, has had difficulty getting started on its preparations. Then it started, but it did not want to make public statements about those preparations, because of the amount of seething anxiety across the international system, of which perhaps those Members who are so happy to go to war are unaware—[Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way.

Clare Short: I have taken a lot of false, rude, ignorant and silly abuse. I should like to make some progress and educate Conservative Members because they are not thinking through all the agonising possibilities. We have to think through the ways in which we can minimise the suffering of the people of Iraq in terms of the reality of the international system in which we have to work. In addition, the neighbouring countries have not been willing to talk openly about the prospects of war or military or humanitarian preparations. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may heckle, but that is the reality.
	Conservative Members seem to think that it is possible to plan to have a war in which the US would be overwhelmingly the largest player and the UK a relatively small player, and for my Department to sit on the sidelines putting in place plans for the humanitarian contingencies so that everyone in Iraq is cared for properly. The world does not work like that. The UK is 5 per cent. of the international humanitarian system. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) asked me to consider becoming a tsar for children. I would be delighted to rage into Iraq to look after its children and to leave the multilateral system to one side, but the scale and complexity of the crisis, and the possibility of a post-war situation, mean that it is not possible to act like that. The value of the debate is to stress that it is impossible to make military plans without thinking of the humanitarian consequences.

Robert Key: Tell us about it.

Clare Short: I told the hon. Gentleman about it in my introductory remarks, but because the Conservative party is so intent on war and the humanitarianism of tidying up afterwards—

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the third time that the right hon. Lady has perpetrated that slander against the party of which I am proud to be a member. Many hon. Members, such as myself, are gravely doubtful of the leadership provided by the Prime Minister on the matter and we want to know what the right hon. Lady is doing to mop up the mess that may be created.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but a point for debate.

Clare Short: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber and has not been listening to the debate. Funnily enough, he just confirmed my point. He wanted to know what I am doing to mop up the mess. That is my very point. We cannot approach the crisis in that way. It does not work like that. We need to think of all the possible contingencies and plan to minimise any harm to the people of Iraq. For example, if chemical and biological weapons are used, the military will have to take action to protect the people, but Conservative Members do not seem to be interested in those realities. I am sure, however, that other hon. Members and those who read the debate will be capable of thinking through the consequences.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Clare Short: No, I am sorry.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), for whom I have much affection and respect, demonstrated the luxury of being a Liberal Democrat. She wanted to withdraw sanctions and to have no military action in the middle east because any war would be a human catastrophe. The UN imposed sanctions after Iraq invaded Kuwait. They were meant to be for a brief period. Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear capacity. The UN put in its inspectors and the sanctions were to be lifted after they disarmed the weaponry. We have worked to refine and limit the sanctions. Surely no one in a responsible world would propose walking away and allowing Saddam Hussein to go on with developing his weapons of mass destruction and terrorising his people. Life is just not as easy as that.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that, despite some of the noises off, it is valuable to have a debate that considers military possibilities alongside humanitarian consequences. Such a debate, which is overdue, might lead to refinement of the planning of some of the military options. He asked, "Should we go in and hammer these people?" The answer is no. If military action is necessary to maintain the authority of the UN to deal with the problem, we should think about how it can be refined so that the people of Iraq are properly cared for and any harm to them is minimised. Some of that work is going on and needs to be taken further.
	I have responded to the points of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. I assure him that we shall do all in our power to minimise the suffering of the people. It is not possible to minimise the suffering of children without minimising the suffering of civilians, of their mothers and their families. If we can have a more sophisticated debate about military options and how to minimise harm to the people of Iraq, we can probably minimise some of that harm and bring about the recovery much more quickly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) used the words, "If we carpet bomb". There must be no carpet bombing. She will remember the Gulf war. I did not resign from our Front Bench when the Gulf war took place. It was my desire to talk about the kind of military action, the unnecessary bombardment and suffering for the people of Iraq, which was not permitted, that led me to resign. There is a speech on the record that spells that out and demonstrates to some Opposition Members that the suggestions that they have been making are false.
	As for the poor hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), he revealed some of the motivations of his party and his ignorance and silliness. His speech was beneath contempt and was not worth commenting on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has campaigned long and hard for the bringing to justice of Saddam Hussein. That is a very useful campaign. I think that the most optimistic scenario is enough time, a united international community, progress in the Middle East, a crumbling of the regime, minimal military action and Saddam Hussein brought to justice. That is not ruled out. If we examine some of the options, we shall see that we could get there and then minimise the suffering of the people.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) asked a question about the Kuwaiti border—[Interruption]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is responding to questions from hon. Members. Quiet would be appreciated.

Clare Short: I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall make sure that it is provided if it is available and if the Ministry of Defence is willing to give it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) asked about refugees going into mined areas. Again I make the point that we must look at all the contingencies, but we must try to avoid massive movements of refugees, because that would mean terrible bombardment, and possible use of chemical and biological weapons. Those contingencies are being thought through by UNHCR. Another hon. Member asked whether it dealt with internally displaced people, and the answer is that it does. The contingency plans are being made, but let us try to ensure that mass movements of population are not caused, because that would mean a terrible situation inside Iraq.
	I would tell the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that we certainly will not repeat the disaster that was Rwanda and the handling of the humanitarian situation there. There have been major improvements in the capacity of the international system since then.
	My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) is "absolutely". The weapons inspectors are back in because there was a willingness to use military action to back up the authority of the UN. We might not like it, but that is the truth. My view is that we should continue with that determination, but through the UN, to minimise humanitarian harm and as speedily as possible reconstruct Iraq. The Arab world is working on the prospect of getting Saddam Hussein removed rather than having a war. All these options should be explored.

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House observes the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq resulting from Saddam Hussein's misrule and Iraqi obstruction of humanitarian agencies; notes that more than ten per cent. of all Iraqi children die before their fifth birthday, and that a quarter of children under five are chronically malnourished; further notes the high dependency of Iraqis on Oil for Food programmes; deplores the continued Iraqi disruption of the Oil for Food programme; recognises the serious threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; understands that military action may follow Iraq's continued violation of its international obligation to disarm and destroy those weapons of mass destruction, contrary to UN Resolution 1441; urges the Secretary of State for International Development to work with the international community urgently to draw up a comprehensive humanitarian strategy for assisting the people of Iraq in the event of war; further urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is close co-operation between the military campaign and the aid effort; and calls on the Secretary of State for International Development to keep Parliament fully informed of the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

Credit Unions

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Credit Unions) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a)(Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

Assured Periodic Tenancies

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Assured Periodic Tenancies) (Rent Increases) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation) and 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
	That—
	(1) the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee; and
	(2) the Committee shall consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above at its meeting on Thursday 6th February.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Robin Cook relating to the options on the composition of the House of Lords not later than Five o'clock; pursuant to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 171), Questions on later Motions may be put notwithstanding any decision of the House on earlier Motions; the Questions may be decided after the moment of interruption, and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Ainger.]

(66) PETITIONS
	 — 
	Coniston Hotel

Derek Wyatt: I wish to present a petition from Robert Wrigley and over 5,000 residents of Sittingbourne in Kent.
	The petition states:
	The Coniston Hotel is a valuable and important resource for the residents of Sittingbourne and provides facilities that are unable to be matched by any other venue within the town.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Home Office to urgently reverse the decision to use the Coniston Hotel as a Centre for Asylum Seekers.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Chechnya

John Redwood: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Anthea West of Norreys Avenue, Wokingham and nearly 5,000 signatories, principally from the Berkshire area, which was collected by Amnesty International Reading group.
	The petition states:
	The UK has been silent in the face of wide scale serious human rights violations in the Republic of Chechnya; that forces of the Russian Federation are reportedly continuing to commit these crimes.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister to publicly condemn, and call for an end to, all human rights violations in the Republic of Chechnya; to make it clear that human rights violations may not be perpetrated and justified under the pretext of an international "war against terrorism"; to urge the Russian authorities both to set up impartial, comprehensive investigations into those violations and to ensure that those guilty of committing them be brought to trial and sentenced appropriately.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

COUNCIL TAX (DORSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Annette Brooke: My constituency of Mid-Dorset and North Poole is covered by four principal councils—Poole unitary authority, Dorset county council, Purbeck district council and East Dorset district council. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will bear with me when I mention those different councils.
	I should make it clear at the outset that I am a Poole councillor. All of my constituency is served by Dorset police authority. I called for this debate because I have received a large number of representations from my constituents, who do not know how they will cope with predicted rises in their council tax. Those representations are largely from pensioners, but the points that I am going to make apply equally to people on fixed or low incomes, particularly pensioners and others who just miss qualifying for benefits.
	I shall quote from some typical letters, one of which says:
	"It is truly outrageous, the proposed increase in council tax, it is indeed bad enough for people earning a living wage but to aged pensioners on a low and fixed pension, it is crippling and a cause of great concern. A great many of us served this country well in 6 long years of war and today we are treated as 2nd and 3rd class citizens, central government and local government impose these extreme hardships on the most vulnerable, without any concern or remorse."
	Another correspondent writes:
	"You will have noticed that a lot of us are lone pensioners, some with just one single state pension. I live in a modest flat. I have to pay insurance, telephone, half bus fare travel, food, clothes, council tax at £70 per month, flat maintenance of £70 per quarter, and so on—all of this out of £75.50 per week."
	I am sure that the Minister will tell me by how much the Government have increased pensions, as well as introducing the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel allowance, but pensions are the same across the whole country, in contrast to levels of council tax and percentage increases in council tax, as I shall demonstrate.
	More than 26 per cent. of Dorset's residents are pensioners, and even in Poole, where there is new development, 23 per cent. of the population are pensioners. Yes, there are some pensioners who might be regarded as affluent, but the vast majority are not, and even those who have private pension schemes are likely to have lost income with the fall in the stock market and its knock-on effects on pensions. Dorset and Poole have relatively low-wage economies, which means that local people are not likely to receive large additional pensions.
	I recently asked some parliamentary questions and established that the real increase in the state pension since 1996 equates to 7 per cent. I also established that percentage increases in council tax in real terms over the same period varied from a reduction of 20 per cent. in Wandsworth to a rise of 66 per cent. in Brent. The percentage increases in real terms over the same period for the billing authorities in my constituency are 37 per cent. in Poole, 49 per cent. in East Dorset and 54 per cent. in Purbeck. It is easy for Ministers to suggest that the increases are all the fault of local councils, but the truth is that it is due to a combination of factors, and the largest influences by far are the level of Government grants and Government requirements on local councils. That is taxation by postcode, determined primarily in Whitehall.
	Wandsworth's band D council tax this year is £403 and Brent's is £878, and I suspect that pensioners get free bus travel in both those places. In Poole, it is £936. I am proud that in Lib-Dem Poole, people get more for less, taking account of the local influences. In East Dorset the figure is £1,045 and in Purbeck £1,023. I could choose billing authorities' increases and actual council tax in different parts of the country to prove almost anything that I set out to prove. As a further example, in Trafford there has been a 19 per cent. increase since 1996, and band D tax is £817. In Westminster, where there has been a 30 per cent. increase, the band D tax is £445.
	A good tax ought to be easy to understand. It is impossible for people to understand the variations that exist. A good tax should also be related to ability to pay, and that is clearly not the case. A real increase in pensions of 7 per cent. from 1996 to date against the best case in Dorset—that is, Poole—where there has been a 37 per cent. real increase in council tax over the same period, is clearly placing a huge burden on pensioners and others on fixed incomes.
	The Government, as the Minister well knows, are currently consulting on a new financial formula, and so far, right across Dorset, the application of the formula has brought forth from the various councils predictions of even larger increases. I am aware that the county council is considering a 16 per cent. increase and that Poole is considering 13 to 14 per cent. Dorset police authority is proposing a 20 per cent. increase in its part of the council tax just to stand still.
	How does that compare with the increase in the state pension? That, I believe, will be increased by a massive 2.58 per cent. in April—that is, £1.95 per week for a single pensioner. The quality of life for pensioners in Dorset is being further attacked in the coming year. People are frightened and do not feel that they can or will take more of this medicine. Some of my constituents have told me that they want to march on Parliament to express their views.
	I know that my local council has agonised over expenditure and endeavoured to make £3 million-worth of cuts, which is a great deal for a small unitary authority, but as education and social services make up the largest part of the budget, cuts are difficult to make without hitting the vulnerable any more, depriving our already poorly funded schools and possibly even incurring the wrath of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by not passporting all the funds as required. Representatives of both Dorset and Poole councils have met Ministers to put their case, but I fear that their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. That is why I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain to the Minister how actions in Westminster are affecting my constituents.
	The past was bad enough for pensioners in my constituency, but the Minister could take action for the future. I should like to make three points about that. Will the anomaly in the new formula, which is adversely affecting all the councils in Dorset, be looked at prior to the final announcement on the financial settlement? Our councils have lost out on the resource equalisation aspect of the new formula, but have received no help from the area cost adjustment.
	The anomaly appears to occur because Dorset and Poole authorities have high house prices but relatively low wages. A recent survey put Poole at No. 14 in the list of places that are most expensive to buy a home in comparison with average wages. The gap is growing and putting more and more pressure on the recruitment of staff for essential services such as teaching and social services. Council wage costs are the same as elsewhere, if not higher. The situation is similar for Dorset: average house prices are slightly lower, but average wages are also lower. Therefore, among the shire counties, Dorset is the second highest ranked in terms of the number of hours worked to buy an average house.
	It would help if the Government were prepared to moderate the effect of the resource equalisation and allow councils in Dorset to benefit from the area cost adjustment. That would mean taking on board house prices. I know that we have made that plea before, but it is so important to many people. I fear that the Minister is likely to say, "You are protected by the floors", but that fills me with even greater dread, as it would appear that things will just get worse in future years. There is also uncertainty because we do not know how long the Minister anticipates that ceilings and floors will exist.
	Secondly, given the burden on pensioners throughout the country under this absurd system—I do not think that anybody could describe all the different council taxes that are quite unrelated to the level of services provided in any other way—will the Minister consult his colleagues and, if there is no more money in the local government financial settlement, consider some additional support for pensioners?
	Thirdly, in the longer term, surely a new local taxation system should be considered, so that taxation is related to ability to pay. I suggest a local income tax as the answer. There would always need to be some equalisation by central Government and a centralised financial settlement, but a local income tax, as recommended by the Layfield committee way back in 1974, which I am sure the Minister will not recall, would allow local decision making and make councils more accountable to their electorate.
	There is a blame culture surrounding the council tax. The ruling party on a council is likely to identify the role of the Government in determining council tax as the prime reason behind the high percentage increase. The opposition parties often try to pin the whole blame on the ruling party. That is the basis of many elections; it is ridiculous and not good for local democracy.
	I have no objection to taxes varying by postcode as long as there is clear and accountable decision making, which, frankly, there is not at the moment. Finally, taxes need to be related to ability to pay. Otherwise, we need some more protection to be put into the system.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is to be congratulated on securing this Adjournment debate in the ballot. Almost every hon. Member representing a Dorset constituency has been trying to secure such an opportunity.
	Does the hon. Lady share my concern about what happened yesterday when I raised the issue under discussion with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions? He said that the prospect of a 19 or 20 per cent. council tax increase in Dorset had nothing to do with the Government and that it was all the fault of the county council. Was that not absurd? Does she agree that it is a big problem that the Government seem to think that the value of one's house is a proxy for one's ability to pay council tax, when it manifestly is not?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I heard part of the answer to which he refers, which emphasises the point that I have been making: there is a blame culture, which does nobody any good. It is clear that council tax forms far less than a third of the amount that pays for local services. When there is a shortage of funds, the leverage or gearing effect puts extra pressure on council tax. I repeat that my colleagues way back in Poole are having sleepless nights while deciding whether to cut social services—the most obvious area in which to make cuts because of the amounts that are spent and as there are fewer restrictions than apply to education—or to increase council tax. In both cases, it is the vulnerable who will be hurt, which fills me with great horror. At the end of the day, the decision will result in high council tax increases for pensioners and others.
	I shall conclude by drawing those points together, as I want to give the Minister plenty of time to provide a full explanation to me and to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I ask him to ensure that we can go back to the people who visit our surgeries and who are writing letters and give them the Government's answer. Will he give serious consideration to the three points that I have made: the formula; something to help pensioners; and, finally, the suggestion that the Government must surely make some changes to this absurd system in the long term?

Christopher Leslie: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on securing this debate? Her honourable colleague on the Back Benches, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), was right to say that many Members have been trying hard to secure a debate on the local government finance settlement. We will have more general opportunities for other Members to discuss the matter, but the hon. Lady has done very well to secure this debate.
	In my short time as a Minister with responsibility for local government, I have received representations from almost all hon. Members regarding how much grant goes from the Government to local authorities. Very rarely have I ever heard any hon. Member say that they are delighted and ecstatic about the grants that they get, even though, in some circumstances, the increases go into double figures. Every year, local and national newspapers are full of stories forecasting doom and gloom about high council tax increases. Sadly, this year is no exception. However, I believe that when one considers the settlement that we have managed to put in place and the extra resources that we have found for local government—an issue to which I shall return in a moment—one sees that there can be very few excuses for excessive council tax rises, especially this year.
	I shall try to address the hon. Lady's three points in particular, but it may be helpful if first I give a quick background to the council tax system and the local government finance arrangements. Decisions rest with the councils and councillors, and it is for the local authorities in Dorset to decide how much council tax local people should pay. The Government do not say at what level council tax should be set or what money should be spent on. Decisions about council tax levels are for individual local authorities, and accountability is the key. Local authorities are answerable to their local electorate about the council tax rate, and we believe that they should take into consideration the views of local taxpayers. Elected councillors—I understand that the hon. Lady is one herself—have a responsibility and accountability in that regard.

Annette Brooke: Contributions from central Government form the greatest portion of the money that goes towards local services. Given that the Government require local authorities to provide a good standard of services, how can local councils have total control over the level at which they set the council tax? Dorset was classed as very good in its comprehensive performance assessment, and Poole, a small unitary authority, was classed as good, so we are talking about efficient councils that have scored highly throughout every test. If the majority of funding comes from central Government, how can the local authority be the sole determinant?

Christopher Leslie: I was about to say that it is true that councils' resources come not only from council tax, but from central Government grant that is allocated to them. All elected councillors face a series of difficult decisions, not only in prioritising where that money should go, but in setting the level of council tax year on year, and we carefully consider the representations that we receive. Ultimately, it is not rocket science. We have a finite pot of money, and we have to apply a formula. It is the best and fairest way of distributing grant to all authorities across the country, and that system should continue. We have reformed the formula system, which has led to improvements, but I understand that it affects different authorities in different ways.

Christopher Chope: The Minister is being a bit disingenuous. The Government make assumptions about the presumed level of council tax that will flow as a result of the settlement. Is it not correct that the assumed council tax is rising from £769 this year to £1,001 next year—an increase of 30 per cent. on the Government's own assumptions?

Christopher Leslie: There are various statistical assumptions about council tax. I shall come to that when we discuss the part of the formula known as resource equalisation. We believe that we have put in place a formula for distributing grant that will ensure a fair distribution between authorities. It is necessarily detailed, but we have been able to simplify the structure, which is now based on a basic level of funding per head, with top-ups for various factors such as deprivation, high labour costs and scarcity.
	The settlement across the country is a good one. We have been able to ensure that every single authority is getting more money—not only that, but an increase above the cost of living and above inflation. It is important to put that on the record. Since this Administration came to power, there has been a 25 per cent. real-terms increase in money to local authorities. That compares very favourably with the cuts that took place under the previous Administration.
	We have set up the system known as floors and ceilings to temper some of the excessive data changes in some authorities—lost population, for example. For some local authorities that have responsibility for providing education and social services, such as Dorset and Poole, the floor is 3.5 per cent. and the ceiling is 8 per cent. For all other authorities, the floor guarantee is 3 per cent.
	We shall announce the final settlement figures next week. Dorset county council is provisionally due to receive £181.1 million in grant—an increase of £66.7 million, or 3.7 per cent.—and Poole borough unitary authority is due to receive £74.5 million, an increase of £2.7 million, or 3.9 per cent. Of the two district councils in the hon. Lady's constituency, East Dorset district council is pencilled in to receive £3.5 million in grant—an increase of £100,000, or 3.6 per cent.—and Purbeck district council receives £3 million in grant, an increase of £800,000, or 3 per cent.
	I can say for the benefit of authorities in Dorset that we intend to keep the system of guaranteeing a certain level of grant for the foreseeable future. We do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to set the level of the floor guarantee for future years, because factors such as data on pupil numbers can vary considerably each year, making it difficult to make a firm decision now on the level of floors and ceilings.
	The hon. Lady asked me to consider what she called the Dorset anomaly—the interplay between the area cost adjustment, which is the top-up system that covers higher labour costs, and the complex but important part of the formula known as resource equalisation.
	The area cost adjustment is now more sensitive to local circumstances. It recognises high costs on a consistent basis nationally, rather than being arbitrarily confined to London and the south-east. We consulted about a house price approach to the area cost adjustment, but that received little support from local government and the local government community.
	We concluded that wages—what is paid to people in each area—are a more robust basis for the area cost adjustment than house prices. That does not imply that house prices do not matter. If they are sustained at a high level in an area, they may lead employers to increase wages to tackle recruitment and retention problems. The area cost adjustment will be updated every year to incorporate the latest wages data.
	Authorities that receive the area cost adjustment are determined directly by wages data. After adjusting the average wage figures to make like-for-like comparisons, we set a threshold. Authorities with relative wages above the threshold receive the area cost adjustment.
	Average wages in Dorset are currently 1.7 per cent. below the cut-off. However, the new methodology protects lower wage areas by bringing those authorities that are below the threshold up to its value. That benefits Dorset and recognises national pay scales for staff such as teachers that do not vary with local wage pressures.
	The hon. Lady asked about resource equalisation. It aims to reflect fairly authorities' relative ability to raise income from their tax base. For grant distribution purposes, we assume that all authorities set a council tax that is the same for every authority in the same class. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made that point. We do not assume that some authorities can set a higher council tax than others. The number of band D equivalent properties varies between authorities.
	Resource equalisation is the means whereby we recognise that authorities can raise differing amounts from a given level of council tax. That is because some authorities have higher tax bases than others. Resource equalisation is not new; it was a key part of the old standard spending assessment system. We have brought it up to date so that it reflects more recent information on the national average level of council tax. That clearly improves the fairness of the grant distribution system.
	The hon. Lady mentioned fairness and asked me to consider the underlying principles of the council tax and whether it was fair for house prices—rather than, for example, local incomes—to determine council tax. That has more to do with whether a local property tax is fair in principle than with grant distribution. The council tax system uses house valuation to establish the relative value of all dwellings in an area. That means that the system can operate effectively and that the burden of taxation is distributed fairly and reasonably.
	The hon. Lady favours a local income tax, but I am curious to ascertain how that would work. Would it be levied according to the person's place of work or residence? Would it disadvantage city areas over suburban areas? Many local authorities, such as Liberal Democrat-controlled Liverpool city council, would not necessarily be happy with such a system.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Leslie: I have no time because I have only a minute left, in which I should like to reassure the hon. Lady that we are giving pensioners extra support. We are giving significant discounts: for example, we are making a 25 per cent. reduction for single people. However, I do accept that more needs to be done, and we shall continue to work on that basis. Basic pension increases have been significant, and there is other support for pensioners as well, as the hon. Lady said. There is the minimum income guarantee, the cut in VAT on all domestic fuel bills, winter fuel payments for pensioners, and free TV licences for the over-75s. We have also increased the amount of savings that pensioners may have before they are taken into account when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits, including council tax benefit.
	The pension credit, which will be introduced from October, will build on the improvements already made to the minimum income guarantee. However, it will go further by simplifying benefits for pensioners, and by directly rewarding savings. It will have two elements: the guarantee credit and the savings credit. The pension credit will ensure that, for the first time, saving will be rewarded instead of being penalised, and that pensioners will gain from having done so.
	In the light of the issues raised by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Christchurch, I believe that the system that is in place provides a more generous level of support for pensioners than that provided under the previous Administration. We want to ensure that we distribute grant to local authorities fairly, so that councils get not just a cash increase, but a real-terms increase in grant. The hon. Lady's local authorities are receiving those sums, and as I said, I do not believe that many excuses exist for excessive council tax rises. I accept that local councillors face difficulties, and it was interesting and useful to meet elected members and officers from the Dorset authorities in undertaking local consultation on the grant distribution process. However, I believe that the council tax system is working reasonably well as a local tax. The hon. Lady should not forget that its predecessor was the poll tax; sometimes, people have short memories in respect of that tax. The current tax is largely accepted and understood by local taxpayers. It is generally regarded as related in some respect to the ability to pay, in that it is linked to the property lived in by the person paying.
	We have given local authorities real increases in grant, but what councils choose to do about council tax is their final decision. I understand the hon. Lady's concerns, but I believe that Dorset is getting a reasonable deal. Councillors have to be held to account, and at the end of the day the council tax is a matter for locally elected councillors.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Seven o'clock.